Difference between revisions of "God-Fearers and the Identity of the Sabians"

From Wikinoah English
Jump to: navigation, search
(first draft, still fixing references)
 
(fixed some italics)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
==Premise==
 
==Premise==
  
The aim of the present work is to shed some light on a long-standing mistery, the identity of the Sabians. Five years ago, indeed, we published a short study just on the same subject <ref>A. FRATINI - C. PRATO, ''I Sebòmenoi (tòn Theòn): Una Risposta all’ Antico Enigma dei Sabei'', Rome 1977 (in Italian, with an English Summary).</ref>where we presented a theory that nobody else had ever advanced: the substantial equivalence of the Sabians with the loose religious group of the God- Fearers <ref>The literature about the subject is enormous. We record here just some of the relevant studies chronologically predating a basically turning-point such as Aphrodisia; most of the other ones will be quoted in the course of discussion: E. SCHURER, “Die Juden im bosphoranischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der ''sebòmenoi theòn hypsiston ''ebendaselbst”, ''Sitzungsberichte der koniglich preussischenAkademie der Wissenschaften'', Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Berlin 1897, pp.199-225; K. LAKE, “Proselytes and G-d Fearers”, in F. FOAKES JACKSON - K. LAKE eds., ''The Beginnings of Christianity'', I, ''The Acts of Apostles'', Vol. 5, London 1933, pp.74-96; G. BERTRAM, art. “Theosebès”, ''TWNT ''III, pp.124-8; L. FELDMAN, “Jewish ‘Sympathizers’ in Classical Literature and Inscriptions”, ''TAPA, ''81 (1950), pp.200-8; L. ROBERT, ''Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes'', I, Paris 1964, pp.39-45; K. ROMANIUK, “Die Gottesfurchtigen im Neun Testament”, ''Aegiptus ''44 (1964), pp.66-91; T. KLAUSER, “''Synagogé tòn Ioudaìon kaì Theosebòn''. Die Aussage einer bosporanischen Freilassungschrift (''CIRB ''71) zum Problem der ‘Gottesfurchtigen’”, ''JAC ''8/9 (1965), pp.171-6; B. LIFSHITZ, “Du Nouveau sur les Sympathisants”, ''JSJ ''1 (1970), pp.77-84; F. SIEGERT, “Gottesfurchtige und Symphatisanten”, ''JSJ ''4 (1973), pp.109-64.</ref>(or, even better, God-Worshippers, ''i.e. ''devotees of the Most-High God <ref>For the choice of a technical term such as “God-Worshippers” instead of “God-Fearers” (because of the evident connection of the latter expression to a Jewish background) see P. R. TREBILCO, ''JewishCommunities in Asia Minor'', Cambridge 1991, p.246 n.1: “ ‘God-worshipper’, a translation of ''theosebès'', … is a more appropriate term than ‘God-fearer’, a translation of ''phoboùmenoi tòn theòn'', which occurs only in Acts”; cf. T. RAJAK, “Jews and Christians as Groups in a Pagan World”, in J. NEUSNER - E. S. FRIERICHS eds., ''To See Ourselves as Others See Us'', Chico California 1985, p.255. See also SIEGERT’s important study “Gottesfurchtige und Sympthisanten” quoted above (n. 2), containing the best survey, at that date (1973), of the literary and epigraphic witnesses about God-Fearers. In the chapt. 13th of the ''Book ofActs'', Luke intentionally replaces the latter expression with the former, which thereafter does not appear any longer in the text. As M. WILCOX (“The ‘God-Fearers’ in Acts: a Reconsideration”, ''JSNT ''13 [1981], p.118) rightly stresses: "“The changeover from ''phoboùmenos tòn theòn ''to ''sebòmenos tòn theòn ''corresponds to a shift in emphasis in Acts from the basically Torah-centered piety of the earlier part to the Gentile mission of the later section … The fact suggests that their use and distribution matches Luke’s intention in his portrayal of events”. When we use “God-Fearers”, therefore, we employ the expession in a non-rigid sense. For the “Fear of God” in the ''Old Testament ''culture see G. NAGEL, “Crainte et Amour de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament”, ''RThPhil ''23 (1945), pp.175-86; B. OLIVIER, “La Crainte de Dieu comme Valeur Religieuse dans l’Ancien Testament”, in ''Les Etudes Religieuses'', Paris 1960, p.66 (“… crainte de Dieu, qui recouvre comme dans tout le mouvement sapientiel l’ensemble de la pieté, de la vie morale, d’une religion de la fidelité interieure”) and ''passim''; H. BALZ, art. “''Phobèo, phobèomai''”, ''TWNT ''IX, mostly pp.197-216. </ref>), whose importance and wide <ref>We use the expression exactly in the following technical sense: “God-Fearers” = “People of pagan origin worshipping the Most-High God”, without investigating which kind of relation they had with the Jewish religious milieu. We follow therefore S. MITCHELL, “The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews and Christians”, in P. ATHANASSIADI - M. FREDE, ''Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity'', Oxford 1999, p.119: “''Theosebès ''was a specific, technical term used to describe themselves by the worshippers of Theos Hypsistos. It served to identify them both among themselves and to the outside world. The prefix ''theo''should not be understood in a loose sense as referring to any god, but precisely to the highest, the one and only god, whom they revered”. There are many scholars thinking that the epithet “Hypsistos” does not necessarily imply Jewish influence: A.D. NOCK - C. ROBERTS - T.C. SKEAT, “The Guild of Zeus Hypsistos”, ''HTR ''29 (1936), pp.64-9 (repr. in A.D. NOCK, ''Essays on Religion and the Ancient World'', I, Oxford 1972, pp.414-43); L. ROBERT, “Reliefs Votifs et Cultes d’Anatolie”, ''Anatolia ''3 (1958), pp.119; T. DREW-BEAR, “Local Cults in Graeco-Roman Phrygia”, ''GRBS ''17 (1976), pp. 248; S. M. SHERWINWHITE, “A Note on Three Coan Inscriptions”, ''ZPE ''21 (1976), p. 187; G.H.R. HORSLEY, ''New DocumentsIllustrating Early Christianity'', I, Macquarie University 1976, p. 26; E. N. LANE, ''Corpus MonumentorumReligionis dei Menis'', III, EPRO 19, Leiden 1976, p.94; M. SIMON, “Jupiter-Yahwé”, ''Numen ''23 (1986), pp.40-66; M. TATSCHEVA-HITOVA, ''Eastern Cults in Moesia Inferior and Thracia (5th Century BC – 4thCentury AD)'', EPRO 95, Leiden 1983, pp.203-4 and 211-15; E. BERNARD, “Au Dieu très Haut”, in ''Hommages à Jean Cousin. Rencontres avec l’Antiquité Classique'', Institut Felix Gaffiot, I, Paris 1983, pp 111; S. E. JOHNSON, “The Present State of Sabazios Research”, ''ANRW ''II, 17.3, pp. 1606-7; Yulia USTINOVA, ''The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom. Celestial Aphrodite and the Most-High God'', Leiden 1999, pp.183-287. </ref>diffusion geographically and chronologically is now accepted <ref>For the scholars who, in spite of all, do not agree with this opinion see below n. 9. </ref>. Almost twenty-five years ago (1977), the exceptional archaeological discovery in the site of the ancient city of Aphrodisia of a big stele <ref>The discovery was made during the preparations for construction of the Aphrodisias Museum, in connection with the excavation on the site conducted by Prof. Erim, sponsored by New York University and supported by National Geographic Society. First archaeological reports by Prof. K.T. ERIM himself in ''AJA'' 81 (1977), p.306, and ''AS ''27 (1977), p.31.</ref>, probably placed at the entrance of the local synagogue, mentioning the names of fifty-four “pious God-fearers” (''òsioi theosebîs'') beside those of sixty-nine Jews (plus three proselytes <ref>J. REYNOLDS - R. TANNENBAUM, ''Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisia'', ''PCPhS'', Suppl. Vol. 12 , Cambridge 1987, edited and commented the original Greek text (cf. J. LINDERSKY’s Review, ''Gnomon ''63 (1991), p.561: “… our inscription is a treasure”): for ''osioi theosebìs ''see p.6, face B, l.35 (two ''theosebès ''are also mentioned at p.5, face A, ll.19-20: Commentary pp.48-67; for proselytes see below, p.24 and ns. 207-8. For a short account of the event by the same Authors, see “Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite”, ''BThR ''12.5 (Sept.-Oct. 1986), pp.54-7. Aphrodisia’s discovery suddenly moved the general pattern about God-Fearers, lighting again the discussion onto the subject to a great extent: WILCOX, op. cit. (above n.3); M. SIMON, art. “Gottesfurchtiger”, ''RAC ''XI, cols. 1060-70; Th. M. FINN, “The God-Fearers Reconsidered”, ''C BQ ''47 (1985), pp.75-84; J. G. GAGER, “Jews, Gentiles, and Synagogues in the Book of Acts”, ''HTR ''79.1-3 (1986), pp.91-99; L. H. KANT, “Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin”, ''ANRW ''II, 20.2, Berlin 1987, pp. 671-713; E. SCHURER, ''The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ'', A New English Version Revised and Edited by G. VERMES, F. MILLAR, M. GOODMAN, III, 1, Edinburgh 1986, chap. 5; L. H. FELDMAN, “Proselytes and ‘Sympathizers’ in the Light of the New Inscriptions from Aphrodisia”, ''REJ ''118.3-4 (Jul.-Dec. 1989), pp.265-305; Idem, ''Jews and Gentiles in theAncient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian'', Princeton 1993, pp..342-382 (“The Success of Jews in Winning ‘Symphatizers’ “; notes pp.569-80); TREBILCO, ''Jewish Communities in AsiaMinor'', pp.145-66; J. M. LIEU, “The Race of the God-Fearers”, ''JThS ''46 (1995), pp.483-501. Irina LEVINSKAYA’s ''The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting ''(''The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting'', Vol. 5), Grand Rapids 1996, pp.51-126, no doubt contains the most complete and exaustive survey of the evidence, even if the full list and discussion of the literary documents is furnished by Feldman, in his second study above cited. </ref>) in their quality of donors <ref>The key-word in the original Greek text is read ''patella ''by REYNOLDS-TANNENBAUM, ''Jews andGod-Fearers'', p.27, and consequently interpreted in terms of a “’distributory station for charity food’ – ''i.e. ''‘a community soup kitchen’. Such a place is also called ''samhui ''in the rabbinical sources … The institution was current at the earliest likely date of our inscription [about the half of the III c. C.E.] in Palestine Jewish communities”. Both the word’s reading and the date proposed by the authors have been criticized: the issues of the discussion are uninteresting for our purposes, so that we limit ourselves to quote the dense ''lemma ''918, ''SEG ''41 (1991), pp.302-3, where many useful references are given; add Margaret H. WILLIAMS, “The Jews and Godfearers Inscription from Aphrodisia – A Case of Patriarchal Interference in Early 3rd Century Caria?”, ''Historia ''41.3 ((1992), pp.297-310; H. BOTERMANN, “Griechish-judische Epigraphic: zur Datierung der Aphrodisias-Inschriften”, ''ZPE ''98 (1993), pp.184-94 (where 2 proselytes and 3 ''theosebeìs ''are wrongly counted, instead of the reverse); P. van MINNEN, “Drei Bemerkungen zur Geschichte des Judentums in der griechisch-romischen Welt”, ''ZPE ''100 (1994), pp.253-258; Marianne PALMER-BOLZ, “The Jewish Donor Inscriptions from Aphrodisias: Are They Both Third-Century, and Who Are the Theosebeis?”, ''HSCPh ''96 (1994), pp.281-299. For the socio-religious class of “donors” see the classical ''Donateurs et Fondateurs dans les Synagogues Juives'', B. LIFSHITZ ed., Paris 1997.</ref>, in fact, seemed finaally to have put an end to a fruitless discussion, which had been going on for no less than sixty years, about the existence of this group <ref>A.T. KRAABEL is no doubt the scholar who with most convinction continued to argue strongly that the various expressions usually translated as “God-Fearers” (''sebòmenoi/phoboùmenoi ''[''tòn theòn'']'', theosebeìs,metuentes ''etc.) cannot be interpreted as technical terms, in spite of the clear evidence coming out from Aphrodisia; moreover, he put in doubt the historical reliability of Luke’s picture of the facts mentioned in ''Acts''. See his several provoking (cf. the definition ‘enfant terrible’ given to him by LEVINSKAYA, op. cit. [above n.7], p.21) articles: “The Disappearance of the God-Fearers”, ''Numen ''28 (1981), pp.113-26; “The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions”, ''JJS ''33 (1982), pp.445-64; “Synagoga Caeca: Systematic Distorsion in Gentile Interpretation of the Evidence for Judaism in the Early Christian Period”, in NEUSNER-FRERICHS eds., ''To See Ourselves as Others See Us''; “Greeks, Jews and Lutherans in the Middle Half of Acts”, in G.W.E. NICKELSBURG - G. MacRAE eds., ''Christians among Jews and Gentiles:Essays in Honour of Krister Stendhal on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday ''(= ''HTR ''79 [1986]), pp.147-157; (with S. Mc LENNAN) “The G-d-Fearers – A Literary and Theological Invention”, ''BThR ''12.5 (Sept-Oct. 1986), pp.46-53. J. MURPHY- O’ CONNOR, “Lots of God-Fearers? ''Theosebeis ''in the Aphrodisia Inscription”, ''RB'' 99.2 (1992), pp.418-24, shares the same opinions of Kraabel, as well as R.S. KRAEMER, “On the Meaning of the Term ‘Jew’ in Graeco-Roman Inscriptions”, ''HTR ''82.1 (1989), pp.35-53, in spite that the “inscription from ancient Aphrodisia has been read by a number of scholars as the definitive evidence against Kraabel’s interpretation” (''ibid. ''p.36 n.4). </ref>. Unfortunately, the edition in Italian of our essay and the small number of libraries and scholars we could contact at that time limited its impact, in spite of the favourable impression it made upon the scholars who had the possibility to read the study.
+
The aim of the present work is to shed some light on a long-standing mistery, the identity of the Sabians. Five years ago, indeed, we published a short study just on the same subject <ref>A. FRATINI - C. PRATO, ''I Sebòmenoi (tòn Theòn): Una Risposta all’ Antico Enigma dei Sabei'', Rome 1977 (in Italian, with an English Summary).</ref>where we presented a theory that nobody else had ever advanced: the substantial equivalence of the Sabians with the loose religious group of the God- Fearers <ref>The literature about the subject is enormous. We record here just some of the relevant studies chronologically predating a basically turning-point such as Aphrodisia; most of the other ones will be quoted in the course of discussion: E. SCHURER, ''Die Juden im bosphoranischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der ''sebòmenoi theòn hypsiston ''ebendaselbst'', ''Sitzungsberichte der koniglich preussischenAkademie der Wissenschaften'', Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Berlin 1897, pp.199-225; K. LAKE, ''Proselytes and G-d Fearers'', in F. FOAKES JACKSON - K. LAKE eds., ''The Beginnings of Christianity'', I, ''The Acts of Apostles'', Vol. 5, London 1933, pp.74-96; G. BERTRAM, art. ''Theosebès'', ''TWNT ''III, pp.124-8; L. FELDMAN, ''Jewish ‘Sympathizers’ in Classical Literature and Inscriptions'', ''TAPA, ''81 (1950), pp.200-8; L. ROBERT, ''Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes'', I, Paris 1964, pp.39-45; K. ROMANIUK, ''Die Gottesfurchtigen im Neun Testament'', ''Aegiptus ''44 (1964), pp.66-91; T. KLAUSER, ''''Synagogé tòn Ioudaìon kaì Theosebòn''. Die Aussage einer bosporanischen Freilassungschrift (''CIRB ''71) zum Problem der ‘Gottesfurchtigen’'', ''JAC ''8/9 (1965), pp.171-6; B. LIFSHITZ, ''Du Nouveau sur les Sympathisants'', ''JSJ ''1 (1970), pp.77-84; F. SIEGERT, ''Gottesfurchtige und Symphatisanten'', ''JSJ ''4 (1973), pp.109-64.</ref>(or, even better, God-Worshippers, ''i.e. ''devotees of the Most-High God <ref>For the choice of a technical term such as ''God-Worshippers'' instead of ''God-Fearers'' (because of the evident connection of the latter expression to a Jewish background) see P. R. TREBILCO, ''JewishCommunities in Asia Minor'', Cambridge 1991, p.246 n.1: '' ‘God-worshipper’, a translation of ''theosebès'', … is a more appropriate term than ‘God-fearer’, a translation of ''phoboùmenoi tòn theòn'', which occurs only in Acts''; cf. T. RAJAK, ''Jews and Christians as Groups in a Pagan World'', in J. NEUSNER - E. S. FRIERICHS eds., ''To See Ourselves as Others See Us'', Chico California 1985, p.255. See also SIEGERT’s important study ''Gottesfurchtige und Sympthisanten'' quoted above (n. 2), containing the best survey, at that date (1973), of the literary and epigraphic witnesses about God-Fearers. In the chapt. 13th of the ''Book ofActs'', Luke intentionally replaces the latter expression with the former, which thereafter does not appear any longer in the text. As M. WILCOX (''The ‘God-Fearers’ in Acts: a Reconsideration'', ''JSNT ''13 [1981], p.118) rightly stresses: "''The changeover from ''phoboùmenos tòn theòn ''to ''sebòmenos tòn theòn ''corresponds to a shift in emphasis in Acts from the basically Torah-centered piety of the earlier part to the Gentile mission of the later section … The fact suggests that their use and distribution matches Luke’s intention in his portrayal of events''. When we use ''God-Fearers'', therefore, we employ the expession in a non-rigid sense. For the ''Fear of God'' in the ''Old Testament ''culture see G. NAGEL, ''Crainte et Amour de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament'', ''RThPhil ''23 (1945), pp.175-86; B. OLIVIER, ''La Crainte de Dieu comme Valeur Religieuse dans l’Ancien Testament'', in ''Les Etudes Religieuses'', Paris 1960, p.66 (''… crainte de Dieu, qui recouvre comme dans tout le mouvement sapientiel l’ensemble de la pieté, de la vie morale, d’une religion de la fidelité interieure'') and ''passim''; H. BALZ, art. ''''Phobèo, phobèomai'''', ''TWNT ''IX, mostly pp.197-216. </ref>), whose importance and wide <ref>We use the expression exactly in the following technical sense: ''God-Fearers'' = ''People of pagan origin worshipping the Most-High God'', without investigating which kind of relation they had with the Jewish religious milieu. We follow therefore S. MITCHELL, ''The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews and Christians'', in P. ATHANASSIADI - M. FREDE, ''Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity'', Oxford 1999, p.119: ''''Theosebès ''was a specific, technical term used to describe themselves by the worshippers of Theos Hypsistos. It served to identify them both among themselves and to the outside world. The prefix ''theo''should not be understood in a loose sense as referring to any god, but precisely to the highest, the one and only god, whom they revered''. There are many scholars thinking that the epithet ''Hypsistos'' does not necessarily imply Jewish influence: A.D. NOCK - C. ROBERTS - T.C. SKEAT, ''The Guild of Zeus Hypsistos'', ''HTR ''29 (1936), pp.64-9 (repr. in A.D. NOCK, ''Essays on Religion and the Ancient World'', I, Oxford 1972, pp.414-43); L. ROBERT, ''Reliefs Votifs et Cultes d’Anatolie'', ''Anatolia ''3 (1958), pp.119; T. DREW-BEAR, ''Local Cults in Graeco-Roman Phrygia'', ''GRBS ''17 (1976), pp. 248; S. M. SHERWINWHITE, ''A Note on Three Coan Inscriptions'', ''ZPE ''21 (1976), p. 187; G.H.R. HORSLEY, ''New DocumentsIllustrating Early Christianity'', I, Macquarie University 1976, p. 26; E. N. LANE, ''Corpus MonumentorumReligionis dei Menis'', III, EPRO 19, Leiden 1976, p.94; M. SIMON, ''Jupiter-Yahwé'', ''Numen ''23 (1986), pp.40-66; M. TATSCHEVA-HITOVA, ''Eastern Cults in Moesia Inferior and Thracia (5th Century BC – 4thCentury AD)'', EPRO 95, Leiden 1983, pp.203-4 and 211-15; E. BERNARD, ''Au Dieu très Haut'', in ''Hommages à Jean Cousin. Rencontres avec l’Antiquité Classique'', Institut Felix Gaffiot, I, Paris 1983, pp 111; S. E. JOHNSON, ''The Present State of Sabazios Research'', ''ANRW ''II, 17.3, pp. 1606-7; Yulia USTINOVA, ''The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom. Celestial Aphrodite and the Most-High God'', Leiden 1999, pp.183-287. </ref>diffusion geographically and chronologically is now accepted <ref>For the scholars who, in spite of all, do not agree with this opinion see below n. 9. </ref>. Almost twenty-five years ago (1977), the exceptional archaeological discovery in the site of the ancient city of Aphrodisia of a big stele <ref>The discovery was made during the preparations for construction of the Aphrodisias Museum, in connection with the excavation on the site conducted by Prof. Erim, sponsored by New York University and supported by National Geographic Society. First archaeological reports by Prof. K.T. ERIM himself in ''AJA'' 81 (1977), p.306, and ''AS ''27 (1977), p.31.</ref>, probably placed at the entrance of the local synagogue, mentioning the names of fifty-four ''pious God-fearers'' (''òsioi theosebîs'') beside those of sixty-nine Jews (plus three proselytes <ref>J. REYNOLDS - R. TANNENBAUM, ''Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisia'', ''PCPhS'', Suppl. Vol. 12 , Cambridge 1987, edited and commented the original Greek text (cf. J. LINDERSKY’s Review, ''Gnomon ''63 (1991), p.561: ''… our inscription is a treasure''): for ''osioi theosebìs ''see p.6, face B, l.35 (two ''theosebès ''are also mentioned at p.5, face A, ll.19-20: Commentary pp.48-67; for proselytes see below, p.24 and ns. 207-8. For a short account of the event by the same Authors, see ''Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite'', ''BThR ''12.5 (Sept.-Oct. 1986), pp.54-7. Aphrodisia’s discovery suddenly moved the general pattern about God-Fearers, lighting again the discussion onto the subject to a great extent: WILCOX, op. cit. (above n.3); M. SIMON, art. ''Gottesfurchtiger'', ''RAC ''XI, cols. 1060-70; Th. M. FINN, ''The God-Fearers Reconsidered'', ''C BQ ''47 (1985), pp.75-84; J. G. GAGER, ''Jews, Gentiles, and Synagogues in the Book of Acts'', ''HTR ''79.1-3 (1986), pp.91-99; L. H. KANT, ''Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin'', ''ANRW ''II, 20.2, Berlin 1987, pp. 671-713; E. SCHURER, ''The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ'', A New English Version Revised and Edited by G. VERMES, F. MILLAR, M. GOODMAN, III, 1, Edinburgh 1986, chap. 5; L. H. FELDMAN, ''Proselytes and ‘Sympathizers’ in the Light of the New Inscriptions from Aphrodisia'', ''REJ ''118.3-4 (Jul.-Dec. 1989), pp.265-305; Idem, ''Jews and Gentiles in theAncient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian'', Princeton 1993, pp..342-382 (''The Success of Jews in Winning ‘Symphatizers’ ''; notes pp.569-80); TREBILCO, ''Jewish Communities in AsiaMinor'', pp.145-66; J. M. LIEU, ''The Race of the God-Fearers'', ''JThS ''46 (1995), pp.483-501. Irina LEVINSKAYA’s ''The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting ''(''The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting'', Vol. 5), Grand Rapids 1996, pp.51-126, no doubt contains the most complete and exaustive survey of the evidence, even if the full list and discussion of the literary documents is furnished by Feldman, in his second study above cited. </ref>) in their quality of donors <ref>The key-word in the original Greek text is read ''patella ''by REYNOLDS-TANNENBAUM, ''Jews andGod-Fearers'', p.27, and consequently interpreted in terms of a ''’distributory station for charity food’ – ''i.e. ''‘a community soup kitchen’. Such a place is also called ''samhui ''in the rabbinical sources … The institution was current at the earliest likely date of our inscription [about the half of the III c. C.E.] in Palestine Jewish communities''. Both the word’s reading and the date proposed by the authors have been criticized: the issues of the discussion are uninteresting for our purposes, so that we limit ourselves to quote the dense ''lemma ''918, ''SEG ''41 (1991), pp.302-3, where many useful references are given; add Margaret H. WILLIAMS, ''The Jews and Godfearers Inscription from Aphrodisia – A Case of Patriarchal Interference in Early 3rd Century Caria?'', ''Historia ''41.3 ((1992), pp.297-310; H. BOTERMANN, ''Griechish-judische Epigraphic: zur Datierung der Aphrodisias-Inschriften'', ''ZPE ''98 (1993), pp.184-94 (where 2 proselytes and 3 ''theosebeìs ''are wrongly counted, instead of the reverse); P. van MINNEN, ''Drei Bemerkungen zur Geschichte des Judentums in der griechisch-romischen Welt'', ''ZPE ''100 (1994), pp.253-258; Marianne PALMER-BOLZ, ''The Jewish Donor Inscriptions from Aphrodisias: Are They Both Third-Century, and Who Are the Theosebeis?'', ''HSCPh ''96 (1994), pp.281-299. For the socio-religious class of ''donors'' see the classical ''Donateurs et Fondateurs dans les Synagogues Juives'', B. LIFSHITZ ed., Paris 1997.</ref>, in fact, seemed finaally to have put an end to a fruitless discussion, which had been going on for no less than sixty years, about the existence of this group <ref>A.T. KRAABEL is no doubt the scholar who with most convinction continued to argue strongly that the various expressions usually translated as ''God-Fearers'' (''sebòmenoi/phoboùmenoi ''[''tòn theòn'']'', theosebeìs,metuentes ''etc.) cannot be interpreted as technical terms, in spite of the clear evidence coming out from Aphrodisia; moreover, he put in doubt the historical reliability of Luke’s picture of the facts mentioned in ''Acts''. See his several provoking (cf. the definition ‘enfant terrible’ given to him by LEVINSKAYA, op. cit. [above n.7], p.21) articles: ''The Disappearance of the God-Fearers'', ''Numen ''28 (1981), pp.113-26; ''The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions'', ''JJS ''33 (1982), pp.445-64; ''Synagoga Caeca: Systematic Distorsion in Gentile Interpretation of the Evidence for Judaism in the Early Christian Period'', in NEUSNER-FRERICHS eds., ''To See Ourselves as Others See Us''; ''Greeks, Jews and Lutherans in the Middle Half of Acts'', in G.W.E. NICKELSBURG - G. MacRAE eds., ''Christians among Jews and Gentiles:Essays in Honour of Krister Stendhal on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday ''(= ''HTR ''79 [1986]), pp.147-157; (with S. Mc LENNAN) ''The G-d-Fearers – A Literary and Theological Invention'', ''BThR ''12.5 (Sept-Oct. 1986), pp.46-53. J. MURPHY- O’ CONNOR, ''Lots of God-Fearers? ''Theosebeis ''in the Aphrodisia Inscription'', ''RB'' 99.2 (1992), pp.418-24, shares the same opinions of Kraabel, as well as R.S. KRAEMER, ''On the Meaning of the Term ‘Jew’ in Graeco-Roman Inscriptions'', ''HTR ''82.1 (1989), pp.35-53, in spite that the ''inscription from ancient Aphrodisia has been read by a number of scholars as the definitive evidence against Kraabel’s interpretation'' (''ibid. ''p.36 n.4). </ref>. Unfortunately, the edition in Italian of our essay and the small number of libraries and scholars we could contact at that time limited its impact, in spite of the favourable impression it made upon the scholars who had the possibility to read the study.
  
This is one of the main reasons why we have decided to take up the subject again; the second, and more important one, is that we have gathered new and relevant pieces of information in support of our theory during recent last years, a circumstance that allows us not only to add further details to the picture already drawn in our previous study, but also to underline the extent to which the facts collected relate to one another with more accuracy and to point out better the weight of each one of them. Finally, we have paid more attention to the methodological aspects of the research, since we believe that the main cause of the unsuccessful results of the different authors who have been concerned with the Sabian “enigma” depends on methodological errors; in other words, we will show that there was a systematic fault in the scientific means of approaching the matter, especially concerning the etymological solutions to the problem of the meaning of the term “Sabian”, as well as how the historical value of textual evidence has been taken into account.
+
This is one of the main reasons why we have decided to take up the subject again; the second, and more important one, is that we have gathered new and relevant pieces of information in support of our theory during recent last years, a circumstance that allows us not only to add further details to the picture already drawn in our previous study, but also to underline the extent to which the facts collected relate to one another with more accuracy and to point out better the weight of each one of them. Finally, we have paid more attention to the methodological aspects of the research, since we believe that the main cause of the unsuccessful results of the different authors who have been concerned with the Sabian ''enigma'' depends on methodological errors; in other words, we will show that there was a systematic fault in the scientific means of approaching the matter, especially concerning the etymological solutions to the problem of the meaning of the term ''Sabian'', as well as how the historical value of textual evidence has been taken into account.
  
We think it is convenient to stress again the ever-lasting validity of the “Principle of Economy”: under the same conditions, it is better to choose a theory which in explaining the facts worth less exceptions; that is, the best theory is the simplest one.
+
We think it is convenient to stress again the ever-lasting validity of the ''Principle of Economy'': under the same conditions, it is better to choose a theory which in explaining the facts worth less exceptions; that is, the best theory is the simplest one.
  
The theory still most widely accepted, as we are going to consider now, is far from being the simplest one. Though many scholars have spent their energies to solve “the Sabians’ mysteries” <ref>That is the title of a J.B. SEGAL’s popular article: “The Sabian Misteries. The Planet-Cult in Ancient Harràn”, in E. BACON ed., ''Vanished Civilizations: Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World'', London 1963, pp.201-20. The author, who is one of the few contemporary students having been deeply concerned with the Sabian culture, wrote several works about the subject: “Pagan Syriac Monuments in the Vilayet of Urfa”, ''AS'' 3 (1953), pp.97-119; “Mesopotamian Communities from Julian to the Rise of Islam”, ''PBA ''41 (1955), pp.109-39; ''Edessa and Harràn. An Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 9 May 1962, ''London 1963; ''Edessa,“The Blessed City”, ''Oxford 1970.</ref>, though no doubt the picture of the religious beliefs and practises of the Harranians (that is to say, the sole representatives of “the people of the Sabians” <ref>About the theoretical connection Peoples-Religions, see below p.23 and n. 195.</ref>whose historical existence has been proved with certainty) is now much better determined <ref>About Harràn is worth while remembering at least the quite recent essay of Tamara M. GREEN, ''TheCity of the Moon-God. Religious Traditions of Harràn'', Leiden-New-York-Koln, 1992, that is the only existing monograph entirely dedicated to this city and its very original inhabitants so strongly linked to their noble religious traditions (G. FEHERVARI’s article “Harràn”, ''EI''2, III, pp. 227-230, is an useful instrument for approaching the subject). Our ''Harràn. La Luna e la Religione dei Filosofi ''(Rome 1991), treats the same matter in a more popular way.</ref>than a hundred and fifty years ago, when ''Die Ssabier undder Ssabismus ''appeared in St. Petersburg, the leading ideas expressed by the Russian orientalist Daniel Chwolson in this monumental work <ref>D. CHWOLSON, ''Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus'', St. Petersburg 1856 (= Amsterdam 1965): this big two volumes work (the second one including only text and commentary of the historical sources) counts 1745 pages!</ref>are still commonly accepted, in particular: 1) the difference between “true Sabians” (the ''Sabi’ùn ''quoted three times by Muhammad in the ''Qur’àn ''side by side with Jews and Christians, without adding any more information about them <ref> ''Sura ''2, 62; 5, 69; 22, 17. We shall use the ''Qur’an''’s translation of M.M. ALI, ''Translation of the HolyQuran'', Lahore 1934.</ref>) and “false Sabians” (normally identified with the inhabitants of Harràn, the Sumero-Babylonian Moon-God ''Sìn''’s ancient cultic capital in Upper Mesopotamia, whose piety was still alive during the Middle Ages <ref>About the Harrànian Sabians, beyond the titles already listed, we quote here for the moment: B DODGE, “The Sabians of Harràn”, in F. SARRUF - S. TAMIM eds., ''American University of Beirut Festival Book'', Beirut 1967, pp.59-85; J. TUBACH, ''Im Schatten des Sonnengottes'', Wiesbaden 1986; C. BUCK, “The Identity of the Sàbi’ùn: An Historical Quest”, ''MW ''74 (1984), pp.172-86; Th. FAHD, art. “Sàbi’a”, ''EI2'', VIII (1986), pp.694-8; M. TARDIEU, “Sàbiens coraniques et ‘Sàbiens’ de Harràn”, ''JA ''274 (1986), pp.1-44; F. De BLOIS, “The ‘Sabians’ (Sàbi’ùn) in Pre-Islamic Arabia”, ''AO'', 56 (1955), pp.39-61. For the persisting duration of the ''Sìn''’s cult at Harràn, the essays published in connection with the Turkish-British archaeological campaign on the site going back to the past sixties are still useful: S. LLOYD-W. BRICE, “Harràn”, ''AS ''1 (1951), pp.77-111; D.S. RICE, “Medieval Harràn. Studies on its Topography and Monuments I”, ''AS ''2 (1952), pp.36-83; but see also the same authors’ popular reports come out onto ''TheIllustrated London News ''222 (21th Feb. 1953), pp.287-9 (“Seeking the Temple of ''Sìn'') and 231 (21th Sept. 1957), pp.466-9 (“From ''Sìn ''to Saladin”). For the religious history of the Sumerian Moon-God, see E. COMBE, ''Histoire du culte de Sin'', Paris 1908; A. SJOBERG, ''Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumerischenUberlieferung'', Stockolm 1960 .</ref>; 2) the identification of “true Sabians” with the small baptismal group of Mandaeans who lived in Muhammad’s times (as they do now) in the marshy South- Mesopotamian region, and who were called sometimes by the nickname ''Subbi ''or ''Subba ''by their neighbours <ref>The book of S. GUNDUZ, ''The Knowledge of Life. The Origins and Early History of the Mandaeansand Their Relation to the Sabians of the Quràn and to the Harranians'', ''JSS ''Suppl. Vol. 3, Oxford 1994 is the last scientific contribute to such a theory which has never failed to get some supporters. Among the most convinced ones, we can certainly record K RUDOLPH and Lady E.S. DROWER who have consecrated to Mandaeans all their scholarly life (abundant bibliography upon both authors’ works in GUNDUZ, ''ibid.,'' pp.239-40 and 246-7): their theoretical position is winded up in a jiffy by TARDIEU, “Sàbiens”, p.6 and n.16. </ref>.
+
The theory still most widely accepted, as we are going to consider now, is far from being the simplest one. Though many scholars have spent their energies to solve ''the Sabians’ mysteries'' <ref>That is the title of a J.B. SEGAL’s popular article: ''The Sabian Misteries. The Planet-Cult in Ancient Harràn'', in E. BACON ed., ''Vanished Civilizations: Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World'', London 1963, pp.201-20. The author, who is one of the few contemporary students having been deeply concerned with the Sabian culture, wrote several works about the subject: ''Pagan Syriac Monuments in the Vilayet of Urfa'', ''AS'' 3 (1953), pp.97-119; ''Mesopotamian Communities from Julian to the Rise of Islam'', ''PBA ''41 (1955), pp.109-39; ''Edessa and Harràn. An Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 9 May 1962, ''London 1963; ''Edessa,''The Blessed City'', ''Oxford 1970.</ref>, though no doubt the picture of the religious beliefs and practises of the Harranians (that is to say, the sole representatives of ''the people of the Sabians'' <ref>About the theoretical connection Peoples-Religions, see below p.23 and n. 195.</ref>whose historical existence has been proved with certainty) is now much better determined <ref>About Harràn is worth while remembering at least the quite recent essay of Tamara M. GREEN, ''TheCity of the Moon-God. Religious Traditions of Harràn'', Leiden-New-York-Koln, 1992, that is the only existing monograph entirely dedicated to this city and its very original inhabitants so strongly linked to their noble religious traditions (G. FEHERVARI’s article ''Harràn'', ''EI''2, III, pp. 227-230, is an useful instrument for approaching the subject). Our ''Harràn. La Luna e la Religione dei Filosofi ''(Rome 1991), treats the same matter in a more popular way.</ref>than a hundred and fifty years ago, when ''Die Ssabier undder Ssabismus ''appeared in St. Petersburg, the leading ideas expressed by the Russian orientalist Daniel Chwolson in this monumental work <ref>D. CHWOLSON, ''Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus'', St. Petersburg 1856 (= Amsterdam 1965): this big two volumes work (the second one including only text and commentary of the historical sources) counts 1745 pages!</ref>are still commonly accepted, in particular: 1) the difference between ''true Sabians'' (the ''Sabi’ùn ''quoted three times by Muhammad in the ''Qur’àn ''side by side with Jews and Christians, without adding any more information about them <ref> ''Sura ''2, 62; 5, 69; 22, 17. We shall use the ''Qur’an''’s translation of M.M. ALI, ''Translation of the HolyQuran'', Lahore 1934.</ref>) and ''false Sabians'' (normally identified with the inhabitants of Harràn, the Sumero-Babylonian Moon-God ''Sìn''’s ancient cultic capital in Upper Mesopotamia, whose piety was still alive during the Middle Ages <ref>About the Harrànian Sabians, beyond the titles already listed, we quote here for the moment: B DODGE, ''The Sabians of Harràn'', in F. SARRUF - S. TAMIM eds., ''American University of Beirut Festival Book'', Beirut 1967, pp.59-85; J. TUBACH, ''Im Schatten des Sonnengottes'', Wiesbaden 1986; C. BUCK, ''The Identity of the Sàbi’ùn: An Historical Quest'', ''MW ''74 (1984), pp.172-86; Th. FAHD, art. ''Sàbi’a'', ''EI2'', VIII (1986), pp.694-8; M. TARDIEU, ''Sàbiens coraniques et ‘Sàbiens’ de Harràn'', ''JA ''274 (1986), pp.1-44; F. De BLOIS, ''The ‘Sabians’ (Sàbi’ùn) in Pre-Islamic Arabia'', ''AO'', 56 (1955), pp.39-61. For the persisting duration of the ''Sìn''’s cult at Harràn, the essays published in connection with the Turkish-British archaeological campaign on the site going back to the past sixties are still useful: S. LLOYD-W. BRICE, ''Harràn'', ''AS ''1 (1951), pp.77-111; D.S. RICE, ''Medieval Harràn. Studies on its Topography and Monuments I'', ''AS ''2 (1952), pp.36-83; but see also the same authors’ popular reports come out onto ''TheIllustrated London News ''222 (21th Feb. 1953), pp.287-9 (''Seeking the Temple of ''Sìn'''') and 231 (21th Sept. 1957), pp.466-9 (''From ''Sìn ''to Saladin''). For the religious history of the Sumerian Moon-God, see E. COMBE, ''Histoire du culte de Sin'', Paris 1908; A. SJOBERG, ''Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumerischenUberlieferung'', Stockolm 1960 .</ref>; 2) the identification of ''true Sabians'' with the small baptismal group of Mandaeans who lived in Muhammad’s times (as they do now) in the marshy South- Mesopotamian region, and who were called sometimes by the nickname ''Subbi ''or ''Subba ''by their neighbours <ref>The book of S. GUNDUZ, ''The Knowledge of Life. The Origins and Early History of the Mandaeansand Their Relation to the Sabians of the Quràn and to the Harranians'', ''JSS ''Suppl. Vol. 3, Oxford 1994 is the last scientific contribute to such a theory which has never failed to get some supporters. Among the most convinced ones, we can certainly record K RUDOLPH and Lady E.S. DROWER who have consecrated to Mandaeans all their scholarly life (abundant bibliography upon both authors’ works in GUNDUZ, ''ibid.,'' pp.239-40 and 246-7): their theoretical position is winded up in a jiffy by TARDIEU, ''Sàbiens'', p.6 and n.16. </ref>.
  
Chwolson’s style of arguing seems easy, and it can be synthesized as follows: since Muhammad could not include a pagan community in the “People of the Book”, to which Jews and Christians surely belonged, the Harranians cannot but lie when professing themselves “Sabians” (and in this sense the famous story of the meeting/dispute between Caliph al-Ma’mùn and the Harranians contained in al- Nadìm’s ''Fihrist ''chapter X plays a decisive role, as the perfect thing for this occasion <ref>IBN AL-NADIM, ''Kitàb al-Fihrist'', ed. G. FLUGEL, Leipzig 1872; ET by B. DODGE, ''The Fihrist of al-Nadìm'', New York-London 1970, pp.751-3. A similar version of the facts, even if much shorter than that, is given by HAMZA ISFAHANI, ''Ta’rìkh sinì mulùk al-ard wa l-anbiyà’'', LT by I..M.E. GOTTWALDT, Petropoli-Lipsiae, 1848, p.3; and by AL-KHWARIZMI, ''Mafàtih al-‘ulùm'', ed. G. Van VLOTEN, Lugd. Bat. 1895, p.36 (= CHWOLSON, op. cit., II, p.504 and p.506). Though not changing the information’s bulk, it seems us quite interesting the Greek word (= “neighbourhood”, “proximity”) quoted in brackets by the English translator of AL-BIRUNI, ''The Chronology of Ancient Nations'', ed. and ET by E. SACHAU, London 1879, p.314 f.: “The same name is also applied to the Harrànians … although they themselves did not adopt this name before A.H. 228 under Abbasid rule, solely for the purpose of being reckoned among those from whom the duties of ''Dhimma ''(''metoikìa'') are accepted and towards whom the laws of ''Dhimma ''were observed. Before that time they were called heathens, idolaters, and Harrànians”. For the connection ''pàroikos ''(= ''mètoikos'') – ''ger ''- proselyte, see SCHURER-VERMES-MILLAR-GOODMAN, ''The History of the JewishPeople'', III, 1, p.170 n.78 (with abundant items from ''Talmud ''and ''Mishnah''’s writings): “The word [''ger''] is originally equivalent to ''pàroikos'', ''advena'', but later a convert to Judaism – ''nomìmois proselelytòs toìsIoudaikoìs'', ''Ant. ''xviii, 3, 5 (82).</ref>; on the other hand, if the Harranian people are not the ''Sabi’ùn ''mentioned in ''Suras'' II, V and XXII laconic verses, there is no doubt that the Prophet had somebody else in mind: but who are the members of this unknown monotheistic community? The phonetic likeness ''Subbi''-''Sàbi’ùn ''provides Chwolson with the answer he wishes <ref>CHWOLSON, ''Die Ssabier'', I , chap. 5 (“Ueber die babylonischen Ssabier im Coràn oder die Mendaiten”), pp.100-38. The Russian orientalist accepts an idea previously proposed by J.D. MICHAELIS, ''Orientalischen Bibliotek'', Vol. 13, Frankfurt 1778, p.30 and Vol. 18, 1782, p.52, p.54, and by M. NORBERG, ''De Religione et Lingua Sabaeorum Commentatio'', Comment. Soc. Reg. Societ. Gott''., ''Vol. III, 1781 (cf. CHWOLSON, op. cit., I, p.66 ff.).</ref>.
+
Chwolson’s style of arguing seems easy, and it can be synthesized as follows: since Muhammad could not include a pagan community in the ''People of the Book'', to which Jews and Christians surely belonged, the Harranians cannot but lie when professing themselves ''Sabians'' (and in this sense the famous story of the meeting/dispute between Caliph al-Ma’mùn and the Harranians contained in al- Nadìm’s ''Fihrist ''chapter X plays a decisive role, as the perfect thing for this occasion <ref>IBN AL-NADIM, ''Kitàb al-Fihrist'', ed. G. FLUGEL, Leipzig 1872; ET by B. DODGE, ''The Fihrist of al-Nadìm'', New York-London 1970, pp.751-3. A similar version of the facts, even if much shorter than that, is given by HAMZA ISFAHANI, ''Ta’rìkh sinì mulùk al-ard wa l-anbiyà’'', LT by I..M.E. GOTTWALDT, Petropoli-Lipsiae, 1848, p.3; and by AL-KHWARIZMI, ''Mafàtih al-‘ulùm'', ed. G. Van VLOTEN, Lugd. Bat. 1895, p.36 (= CHWOLSON, op. cit., II, p.504 and p.506). Though not changing the information’s bulk, it seems us quite interesting the Greek word (= ''neighbourhood'', ''proximity'') quoted in brackets by the English translator of AL-BIRUNI, ''The Chronology of Ancient Nations'', ed. and ET by E. SACHAU, London 1879, p.314 f.: ''The same name is also applied to the Harrànians … although they themselves did not adopt this name before A.H. 228 under Abbasid rule, solely for the purpose of being reckoned among those from whom the duties of ''Dhimma ''(''metoikìa'') are accepted and towards whom the laws of ''Dhimma ''were observed. Before that time they were called heathens, idolaters, and Harrànians''. For the connection ''pàroikos ''(= ''mètoikos'') – ''ger ''- proselyte, see SCHURER-VERMES-MILLAR-GOODMAN, ''The History of the JewishPeople'', III, 1, p.170 n.78 (with abundant items from ''Talmud ''and ''Mishnah''’s writings): ''The word [''ger''] is originally equivalent to ''pàroikos'', ''advena'', but later a convert to Judaism – ''nomìmois proselelytòs toìsIoudaikoìs'', ''Ant. ''xviii, 3, 5 (82)''.</ref>; on the other hand, if the Harranian people are not the ''Sabi’ùn ''mentioned in ''Suras'' II, V and XXII laconic verses, there is no doubt that the Prophet had somebody else in mind: but who are the members of this unknown monotheistic community? The phonetic likeness ''Subbi''-''Sàbi’ùn ''provides Chwolson with the answer he wishes <ref>CHWOLSON, ''Die Ssabier'', I , chap. 5 (''Ueber die babylonischen Ssabier im Coràn oder die Mendaiten''), pp.100-38. The Russian orientalist accepts an idea previously proposed by J.D. MICHAELIS, ''Orientalischen Bibliotek'', Vol. 13, Frankfurt 1778, p.30 and Vol. 18, 1782, p.52, p.54, and by M. NORBERG, ''De Religione et Lingua Sabaeorum Commentatio'', Comment. Soc. Reg. Societ. Gott''., ''Vol. III, 1781 (cf. CHWOLSON, op. cit., I, p.66 ff.).</ref>.
  
 
But this solution is only apparently easy: it requires both a falsehood on the part of the Harranians who wanted to defend at any cost their ancient religious traditions, and an interested misunderstanding by the Islamic authorities who were welldisposed to turn a blind eye on a pagan community ''à outrance ''in exchange for money (the well-known ''leit-motiv ''of the Near-Eastern peoples’ innate corruption); moreover, it lets a very small religious group grow up in Muhammad’s mind until it becomes a Universal Religion like Christianity and Judaism, as it requires a rather free use of the rules of Etymology (and it is not surprising that very soon the latter point in Chwolson’s thesis was bitterly criticized). This is why we say that Chwolson fails not only in working out the simplest theory, but just a simple one, unless one uses the word as a fable, rather than as something worthy to the word Science. It goes without saying that if all the pieces of evidence in the new pattern which we are going to provide were demonstrated <ref>19 </ref>beyond any doubt, we would not have spent so many words arguing and criticizing a book written a hundred an fifty years ago, even if – as we have already said – its theoretical issues are those which are to be found in most encyclopaedias and dictionaries. But we believe that all means are valid to show how much the opening of an alternative horizon on the Sabian problem is needed: it will lead the scholars’ efforts in a direction that might have been totally ignored, without the material collected here. In other words, we hope that, with the help of our suggestions, new evidence will come to light, strengthening our arguments’ validity.
 
But this solution is only apparently easy: it requires both a falsehood on the part of the Harranians who wanted to defend at any cost their ancient religious traditions, and an interested misunderstanding by the Islamic authorities who were welldisposed to turn a blind eye on a pagan community ''à outrance ''in exchange for money (the well-known ''leit-motiv ''of the Near-Eastern peoples’ innate corruption); moreover, it lets a very small religious group grow up in Muhammad’s mind until it becomes a Universal Religion like Christianity and Judaism, as it requires a rather free use of the rules of Etymology (and it is not surprising that very soon the latter point in Chwolson’s thesis was bitterly criticized). This is why we say that Chwolson fails not only in working out the simplest theory, but just a simple one, unless one uses the word as a fable, rather than as something worthy to the word Science. It goes without saying that if all the pieces of evidence in the new pattern which we are going to provide were demonstrated <ref>19 </ref>beyond any doubt, we would not have spent so many words arguing and criticizing a book written a hundred an fifty years ago, even if – as we have already said – its theoretical issues are those which are to be found in most encyclopaedias and dictionaries. But we believe that all means are valid to show how much the opening of an alternative horizon on the Sabian problem is needed: it will lead the scholars’ efforts in a direction that might have been totally ignored, without the material collected here. In other words, we hope that, with the help of our suggestions, new evidence will come to light, strengthening our arguments’ validity.
Line 17: Line 17:
 
==The Etymological Model==
 
==The Etymological Model==
  
It is impossible to be grateful enough to the Italian scholar Giovanni Semerano for the work which he has carried out throughout his life (he is now ninety-two years old!) in the field of Etymology. In fact, nobody before him, had proved in the same degree the unbelievable conservative power of language and the practical consequences of this fact on a historical level. For those who do not yet know this learned man or the struggles he had to fight to make his revolutionary position known, we need only to quote his main work, ''Le origini della cultura europea ''<ref>20 </ref>(''TheOrigins of the European culture'') and the more recent book ''L’infinito: un equivocomillenario ''<ref>21 </ref>(''Infinity: a millenary mistake''), which another Italian scholar, the philosopher Emanuele Severino, once called “una festa dell’intelligenza”. Why such a title? And why should it represent “a feast of the intelligence”? <ref>22 </ref>Because Semerano for the first time sweeps away an old idea, which he defines in terms of “Indoeuropean Mirage” <ref>23</ref>, implying that the linguistic roots of Italian, in particular, and those of other European languages, more generally, for the most part go back to old Greek or to Latin (more remotely, to Sanscrit as well). The issues linked to such a wrong use of Etymology’s rules were often quite funny: let us recall here only the once common etymological explanation of the word “Italia”, which the “Indoeuropean Mirage” went as far as connecting to the Latin term ''vitulus'', obtaining consequently the curious result: “Italia” = “Terra dei Vitelli” (“the Calves’ Country”)! <ref>24</ref>
+
It is impossible to be grateful enough to the Italian scholar Giovanni Semerano for the work which he has carried out throughout his life (he is now ninety-two years old!) in the field of Etymology. In fact, nobody before him, had proved in the same degree the unbelievable conservative power of language and the practical consequences of this fact on a historical level. For those who do not yet know this learned man or the struggles he had to fight to make his revolutionary position known, we need only to quote his main work, ''Le origini della cultura europea ''<ref>20 </ref>(''TheOrigins of the European culture'') and the more recent book ''L’infinito: un equivocomillenario ''<ref>21 </ref>(''Infinity: a millenary mistake''), which another Italian scholar, the philosopher Emanuele Severino, once called ''una festa dell’intelligenza''. Why such a title? And why should it represent ''a feast of the intelligence''? <ref>22 </ref>Because Semerano for the first time sweeps away an old idea, which he defines in terms of ''Indoeuropean Mirage'' <ref>23</ref>, implying that the linguistic roots of Italian, in particular, and those of other European languages, more generally, for the most part go back to old Greek or to Latin (more remotely, to Sanscrit as well). The issues linked to such a wrong use of Etymology’s rules were often quite funny: let us recall here only the once common etymological explanation of the word ''Italia'', which the ''Indoeuropean Mirage'' went as far as connecting to the Latin term ''vitulus'', obtaining consequently the curious result: ''Italia'' = ''Terra dei Vitelli'' (''the Calves’ Country'')! <ref>24</ref>
  
Against such miracles of ingenuity, in virtue of which everything becomes possible, Semerano rightly raised the plain objection that the initial “i” in the word “Italia” is long, whereas in the word ''vitulus ''it is short <ref>25</ref>; this briefly means that in the first case the vowel “i” belongs to the word’s root, while in the second one it does not: nothing else is necessary to demonstrate that such an inference is wrong, and with it thousands and thousands of others. It is now easy to understand why Semerano felt the need to reconsider during his long and not always happy life <ref>26</ref> roughly twenty-five thousands words <ref>27</ref>, both common nouns and proper names, in old Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, German, English, Slavic, together with their alleged original Indoeuropean roots systematically collected by classical linguists. Thus to a great extent, he took on the task of rewriting Europe’s linguistic history, an activity which coincided eventually with rewriting the history of the European culture itself: a huge task, indeed!
+
Against such miracles of ingenuity, in virtue of which everything becomes possible, Semerano rightly raised the plain objection that the initial ''i'' in the word ''Italia'' is long, whereas in the word ''vitulus ''it is short <ref>25</ref>; this briefly means that in the first case the vowel ''i'' belongs to the word’s root, while in the second one it does not: nothing else is necessary to demonstrate that such an inference is wrong, and with it thousands and thousands of others. It is now easy to understand why Semerano felt the need to reconsider during his long and not always happy life <ref>26</ref> roughly twenty-five thousands words <ref>27</ref>, both common nouns and proper names, in old Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, German, English, Slavic, together with their alleged original Indoeuropean roots systematically collected by classical linguists. Thus to a great extent, he took on the task of rewriting Europe’s linguistic history, an activity which coincided eventually with rewriting the history of the European culture itself: a huge task, indeed!
  
As we are writing these pages, we realize that it is the 27th of January, a date which Italy and other European countries, plus Israel and the U.S.A., decided a few years ago to celebrate as a “Memorial Day”, in order to show to the new generations the atrocities of the Holocaust – the ''Shoah – ''during the past Second World War, so that nobody ever forgets Nazi-Fascist barbarity and, above all, so that such horror should never repeat itself in the course of human history. The present reference to anti-Semitism is not casual. In fact what Semerano calls the “Indoeuropean Mirage” saw the light just at the beginning of XIX century together with the birth of Comparative Linguistics, but it owed its existence to something that had nothing to do with a scientific and neutral interest in ancient languages: it was a floating mine, it was racism <ref>28</ref>. The proud sense of their own superiority over Semitic populations expressed by the Germans and other European peoples started from an unconscious hate that slowly transformed itself into an open will of destruction; and it was just the same absurd spirit of self-excellence that invented the legend of the beautiful and terrible Indo-European race, coming from the deep Asian steppes, riding on their fast wild horses, whose assigned destiny was the conquest of the world. “We have been searching everywhere - Semerano says - but, in spite of our sincere efforts, we have found no trace of the Indoeuropeans at all” <ref>29</ref>. Nor of their imaginary language, of course.
+
As we are writing these pages, we realize that it is the 27th of January, a date which Italy and other European countries, plus Israel and the U.S.A., decided a few years ago to celebrate as a ''Memorial Day'', in order to show to the new generations the atrocities of the Holocaust – the ''Shoah – ''during the past Second World War, so that nobody ever forgets Nazi-Fascist barbarity and, above all, so that such horror should never repeat itself in the course of human history. The present reference to anti-Semitism is not casual. In fact what Semerano calls the ''Indoeuropean Mirage'' saw the light just at the beginning of XIX century together with the birth of Comparative Linguistics, but it owed its existence to something that had nothing to do with a scientific and neutral interest in ancient languages: it was a floating mine, it was racism <ref>28</ref>. The proud sense of their own superiority over Semitic populations expressed by the Germans and other European peoples started from an unconscious hate that slowly transformed itself into an open will of destruction; and it was just the same absurd spirit of self-excellence that invented the legend of the beautiful and terrible Indo-European race, coming from the deep Asian steppes, riding on their fast wild horses, whose assigned destiny was the conquest of the world. ''We have been searching everywhere - Semerano says - but, in spite of our sincere efforts, we have found no trace of the Indoeuropeans at all'' <ref>29</ref>. Nor of their imaginary language, of course.
  
Though such a primary language never existed on the face of earth, it had a very big influence – as everybody knows - on a cultural level anyway. Its most important effect in the field of the human sciences was the construction of a strong high wall between the Aryans and most of the Near Eastern peoples settled along approximately the same natural border-line, the Euphrates river, which in Imperial times divided the Roman State from Persia so that nobody was able to cross it nor to look beyond it any longer. The Europeans preferred to be blind rather than to recognise any sort of kinship with their Semitic neighbours. We have already stressed the consequences of such an attitude in connection to the term “Italia”: it is better to be akin to calves than to Arabs and Jews!
+
Though such a primary language never existed on the face of earth, it had a very big influence – as everybody knows - on a cultural level anyway. Its most important effect in the field of the human sciences was the construction of a strong high wall between the Aryans and most of the Near Eastern peoples settled along approximately the same natural border-line, the Euphrates river, which in Imperial times divided the Roman State from Persia so that nobody was able to cross it nor to look beyond it any longer. The Europeans preferred to be blind rather than to recognise any sort of kinship with their Semitic neighbours. We have already stressed the consequences of such an attitude in connection to the term ''Italia'': it is better to be akin to calves than to Arabs and Jews!
  
Putting aside humour, the scandal of the long silences that the reader so often meets when opening any old Greek or Latin etymological dictionary (with such laconic expressions as “etymology: unknown”, “ignorée”, “inconnue”, “unbekannt”)<ref>30</ref> was real, but no scholar ever wondered or raised objections in front of the vacuum: in spite of such a great distance in terms of space and time, it was to the ancient Indian civilization that linguists should continue to present their questions; if Sanscrit does not answer, the answer does not exist at all <ref>31</ref>. And yet just one step across a much closer border was needed to fill a lot of those empty spaces: but who would be courageous and fearless enough to do it?
+
Putting aside humour, the scandal of the long silences that the reader so often meets when opening any old Greek or Latin etymological dictionary (with such laconic expressions as ''etymology: unknown'', ''ignorée'', ''inconnue'', ''unbekannt'')<ref>30</ref> was real, but no scholar ever wondered or raised objections in front of the vacuum: in spite of such a great distance in terms of space and time, it was to the ancient Indian civilization that linguists should continue to present their questions; if Sanscrit does not answer, the answer does not exist at all <ref>31</ref>. And yet just one step across a much closer border was needed to fill a lot of those empty spaces: but who would be courageous and fearless enough to do it?
  
Beyond such a thin and hard to cross borderline, in fact, a very rich treasure lies: the Accadian lexicon <ref>32</ref>. There, in the interiors of such a golden mine available to linguists at least since the middle of the XIX century <ref>33</ref>, even the right meaning of the noun “Italia” was hidden together with a “host” of other ones, so that it was not difficult at this point to connect the Italian term with the Accadian lemma ''attalu ''= “occident, west, sunset”, coming thus to the entirely intelligible result “Italia” = “Country of the West”<ref>34</ref>. We have already said it: solutions must be easy or they are not real ones. What did the old Greeks have in mind when naming the Italian peninsula ''Esperia'', but “the country of the west”? On the other hand, the initial letter of the Accadian word perfectly agrees with first “i” of the Italian noun by quantity: thus the present solution is satisfying not only from a logical point of view, since it allows us to throw away a meaningless definition in exchange of a meaningful one, but also from the structural requirements of Phonetics, just as it should be.
+
Beyond such a thin and hard to cross borderline, in fact, a very rich treasure lies: the Accadian lexicon <ref>32</ref>. There, in the interiors of such a golden mine available to linguists at least since the middle of the XIX century <ref>33</ref>, even the right meaning of the noun ''Italia'' was hidden together with a ''host'' of other ones, so that it was not difficult at this point to connect the Italian term with the Accadian lemma ''attalu ''= ''occident, west, sunset'', coming thus to the entirely intelligible result ''Italia'' = ''Country of the West''<ref>34</ref>. We have already said it: solutions must be easy or they are not real ones. What did the old Greeks have in mind when naming the Italian peninsula ''Esperia'', but ''the country of the west''? On the other hand, the initial letter of the Accadian word perfectly agrees with first ''i'' of the Italian noun by quantity: thus the present solution is satisfying not only from a logical point of view, since it allows us to throw away a meaningless definition in exchange of a meaningful one, but also from the structural requirements of Phonetics, just as it should be.
  
 
In the Near Eastern Antiquity, Accadian was the first international writing normally in use, because it was the language that was used for royal chancellery acts and all other sorts of documents during almost fifteen hundred years. That is the main reason why Accadian has to be chosen instead of Sanscrit: the former was widely spread many centuries before the latter came into existence. One should reverse the way followed by classical scholars until now: when an old Greek or a Latin root seems to go back to the Indian milieu, these are just surface impressions or, even better, mirror effects; when such a case does happen, in fact, the Sanscrit root goes systematically back in its turn to an Accadian antecedent, common to both European classical languages and to Indian ones <ref>35</ref>.
 
In the Near Eastern Antiquity, Accadian was the first international writing normally in use, because it was the language that was used for royal chancellery acts and all other sorts of documents during almost fifteen hundred years. That is the main reason why Accadian has to be chosen instead of Sanscrit: the former was widely spread many centuries before the latter came into existence. One should reverse the way followed by classical scholars until now: when an old Greek or a Latin root seems to go back to the Indian milieu, these are just surface impressions or, even better, mirror effects; when such a case does happen, in fact, the Sanscrit root goes systematically back in its turn to an Accadian antecedent, common to both European classical languages and to Indian ones <ref>35</ref>.
  
The finding of a new original framework to be applied in etymological research represents a real Copernican revolution <ref>36 </ref>not only in the field of Linguistics: it implies also an alternative historical model for the development of the Near East ancient civilizations and for their mutual relationships, in other words a new idea regarding the progress of mankind and its main starting points. As the entirely unexpected discovery of Ebla by Italian archaeologists had already shown at the end of the sixties and even more in the next decades, by stressing the absolute importance of this part of the Ancient World, one of the most significant “cultural engines” in the course of human history lay geographically in the Syro-Mesopotamian area: the art of writing, namely the most commonly accepted reference-mark for the beginning of the historical age, flourished in that region when men were still wandering partially in shadows along the Nile and Indo river valleys <ref>37</ref>.
+
The finding of a new original framework to be applied in etymological research represents a real Copernican revolution <ref>36 </ref>not only in the field of Linguistics: it implies also an alternative historical model for the development of the Near East ancient civilizations and for their mutual relationships, in other words a new idea regarding the progress of mankind and its main starting points. As the entirely unexpected discovery of Ebla by Italian archaeologists had already shown at the end of the sixties and even more in the next decades, by stressing the absolute importance of this part of the Ancient World, one of the most significant ''cultural engines'' in the course of human history lay geographically in the Syro-Mesopotamian area: the art of writing, namely the most commonly accepted reference-mark for the beginning of the historical age, flourished in that region when men were still wandering partially in shadows along the Nile and Indo river valleys <ref>37</ref>.
  
In the next pages we will perform an operation which not even our courageous and fearless professor Semerano, notwithstanding his sincere passion for the truth, managed, since such a thing was outside his own range of activities. If, as Semerano has proved with certainty, the incredible enduring power of Accadian forms has to be recognized in the European classical languages as well as into modern ones, there is no reason for not supposing that a similar phenomenon had happened in the Near Eastern linguistic sphere. In reality, the influence of Accadian on the languages of the Semitic branch is among the facts more commonly accepted by scholars, as orientalists have recognized from a long time similar inter-linguistic relations, both from a diachronic and synchronic point of view: but much work must still be done in this sense and, as it is evident that the European cultural context requires it, many past errors must be corrected in this field of research too. What failed to be understood up to now, in fact, is the full importance of the central role of the Accadian language, so that it appears to be the primary pattern which one should make reference to when, as general rule, etymological problems are at stake. We shall try to show, therefore, how strong the conservative power of the Accadian linguistic bulk had been even in reference to the problem which we are concerned with, the Sabians: obviously, it is a matter of Etymology, but we believe that our etymological solution is worthy of interest, by comparing it to the other ones which were proposed till now, for the simple reason that it is not an abstract hypothesis, good for some scholarly minds, as those were; on the contrary, it stands on solid theoretical grounds, because it agrees not only with phonetic general rules, but also with the historical developments of religions since Antiquity up to the Middle Ages throughout the Near Eastern area. Last but not least, our theory also fulfils the duties involved by the already quoted “Principle of Economy”: for the first time, it makes a clean sweep of the artificial difference “true Sabians” - “false Sabians” in a satisfactory way, namely without resorting – as J. Pedersen in the twenties (and J. Hjarpe who followed his opinion more recently) did – to the concept of Gnosis <ref>38</ref>. It is true, in fact, that Pedersen’s solution gets over Chwolson’s incongruities by finding a single name for the subject implied by Muhammad’s words and by the religious-historical framework to come, with the well known difficulties of according several self-styled or alleged “Sabian” communities to the ''Koran''’s enigmatic group; however the idea of rendering in both cases the Sabians equal to Gnostics does not explain anything, because concepts like Gnosis and Gnosticism are in everybody’s opinion so hazy and loose that they can never help to solve a problem of identity, mostly when the problem in question is represented by such a complex phenomenon as Sabianism.
+
In the next pages we will perform an operation which not even our courageous and fearless professor Semerano, notwithstanding his sincere passion for the truth, managed, since such a thing was outside his own range of activities. If, as Semerano has proved with certainty, the incredible enduring power of Accadian forms has to be recognized in the European classical languages as well as into modern ones, there is no reason for not supposing that a similar phenomenon had happened in the Near Eastern linguistic sphere. In reality, the influence of Accadian on the languages of the Semitic branch is among the facts more commonly accepted by scholars, as orientalists have recognized from a long time similar inter-linguistic relations, both from a diachronic and synchronic point of view: but much work must still be done in this sense and, as it is evident that the European cultural context requires it, many past errors must be corrected in this field of research too. What failed to be understood up to now, in fact, is the full importance of the central role of the Accadian language, so that it appears to be the primary pattern which one should make reference to when, as general rule, etymological problems are at stake. We shall try to show, therefore, how strong the conservative power of the Accadian linguistic bulk had been even in reference to the problem which we are concerned with, the Sabians: obviously, it is a matter of Etymology, but we believe that our etymological solution is worthy of interest, by comparing it to the other ones which were proposed till now, for the simple reason that it is not an abstract hypothesis, good for some scholarly minds, as those were; on the contrary, it stands on solid theoretical grounds, because it agrees not only with phonetic general rules, but also with the historical developments of religions since Antiquity up to the Middle Ages throughout the Near Eastern area. Last but not least, our theory also fulfils the duties involved by the already quoted ''Principle of Economy'': for the first time, it makes a clean sweep of the artificial difference ''true Sabians'' - ''false Sabians'' in a satisfactory way, namely without resorting – as J. Pedersen in the twenties (and J. Hjarpe who followed his opinion more recently) did – to the concept of Gnosis <ref>38</ref>. It is true, in fact, that Pedersen’s solution gets over Chwolson’s incongruities by finding a single name for the subject implied by Muhammad’s words and by the religious-historical framework to come, with the well known difficulties of according several self-styled or alleged ''Sabian'' communities to the ''Koran''’s enigmatic group; however the idea of rendering in both cases the Sabians equal to Gnostics does not explain anything, because concepts like Gnosis and Gnosticism are in everybody’s opinion so hazy and loose that they can never help to solve a problem of identity, mostly when the problem in question is represented by such a complex phenomenon as Sabianism.
  
 
==The Origins of the Name==
 
==The Origins of the Name==
  
We should repeat here what we wrote in our previous study. By observing the uncertainty and the hesitations that ancient Koranic commentators and Islamic traditionists - but also Muslim Middle Ages’ historians, geographers, heresiologists etc. - show when the subject “Sabians” comes into play, it is difficult not to have the impression of dealing with a non-Arabic word. In fact there is no mutual consent among all these learned men about the true meaning of the word and its linguistic root, neither about the right way of writing and pronouncing it: so, one may usually find beside the Arabic plural written form ''Sàbi’ùn'', the collective forms ''Sàbi’a ''and ''Sàba''; in the meantime, according to one of the most famous ancient ''mufassirùn'', al- Zamakhsharì, Koranic sayers would have frequently pronounced the word ''al-Sàbùn'', without ''hamza ''<ref>39</ref>. Those are just a handful of examples, but we believe that they are sufficient to grasp the linguistic conditions of the problem. Confusion increases, besides, when one thinks over the existence of two different, though very closely inter-related Arabic roots, ''SB’ ''and ''SBW'', and consequently of two corresponding verbal forms, ''saba’a ''and ''sabà'', from which the name ''Sàbi ''(sing.)/''Sàbi’ùn ''(plur.) is generally supposed to derive <ref>40</ref>. We hope that our ''I Sebòmenoi ''have explained the various semantic values of these verbs <ref>41 </ref>clearly enough, and we find it unnecessary, therefore, to look back to the historical reasons that probably gave birth to such different meanings once again.
+
We should repeat here what we wrote in our previous study. By observing the uncertainty and the hesitations that ancient Koranic commentators and Islamic traditionists - but also Muslim Middle Ages’ historians, geographers, heresiologists etc. - show when the subject ''Sabians'' comes into play, it is difficult not to have the impression of dealing with a non-Arabic word. In fact there is no mutual consent among all these learned men about the true meaning of the word and its linguistic root, neither about the right way of writing and pronouncing it: so, one may usually find beside the Arabic plural written form ''Sàbi’ùn'', the collective forms ''Sàbi’a ''and ''Sàba''; in the meantime, according to one of the most famous ancient ''mufassirùn'', al- Zamakhsharì, Koranic sayers would have frequently pronounced the word ''al-Sàbùn'', without ''hamza ''<ref>39</ref>. Those are just a handful of examples, but we believe that they are sufficient to grasp the linguistic conditions of the problem. Confusion increases, besides, when one thinks over the existence of two different, though very closely inter-related Arabic roots, ''SB’ ''and ''SBW'', and consequently of two corresponding verbal forms, ''saba’a ''and ''sabà'', from which the name ''Sàbi ''(sing.)/''Sàbi’ùn ''(plur.) is generally supposed to derive <ref>40</ref>. We hope that our ''I Sebòmenoi ''have explained the various semantic values of these verbs <ref>41 </ref>clearly enough, and we find it unnecessary, therefore, to look back to the historical reasons that probably gave birth to such different meanings once again.
  
 
No doubt, the fact that the word does appear for the first time within the ''Qur’àn'' cannot prove anything about its own origins, because it is not by evidence of this kind that one may know whether the noun belongs or not to the Arabic linguistic tradition: as the latest research has shown with more and more certainty, poetry writings which traditionally were considered to be of pure Arabic production, because of their composition going back to the so-called ''Ayyàm al-Arab'', belong on the contrary to the Muslim age and are not able, therefore, to give a real portrait of the life of those legendary days, nor to inform us about the language really spoken in such a distant past <ref>42</ref>. So, when one does not find the verbs ''saba’a/sabà ''nor the name(s) ''Sàbi/Sàbi’ùn ''(''Sàbi’a ''etc.) among the lyrical words used by the poets of the ''Ayyàmal-Arab'', it does not mean that this group of terms is really old, since the ''Qur’àn ''– as, on the other hand, it never ceased of being considered such in the Muslim world – is the pure Arabic linguistic prototype <ref>43</ref>.
 
No doubt, the fact that the word does appear for the first time within the ''Qur’àn'' cannot prove anything about its own origins, because it is not by evidence of this kind that one may know whether the noun belongs or not to the Arabic linguistic tradition: as the latest research has shown with more and more certainty, poetry writings which traditionally were considered to be of pure Arabic production, because of their composition going back to the so-called ''Ayyàm al-Arab'', belong on the contrary to the Muslim age and are not able, therefore, to give a real portrait of the life of those legendary days, nor to inform us about the language really spoken in such a distant past <ref>42</ref>. So, when one does not find the verbs ''saba’a/sabà ''nor the name(s) ''Sàbi/Sàbi’ùn ''(''Sàbi’a ''etc.) among the lyrical words used by the poets of the ''Ayyàmal-Arab'', it does not mean that this group of terms is really old, since the ''Qur’àn ''– as, on the other hand, it never ceased of being considered such in the Muslim world – is the pure Arabic linguistic prototype <ref>43</ref>.
  
Likewise, we are not helped by the textual evidence contained within several ''hadith ''and ''sìra''’s writings <ref>44</ref>, which J. Wellhausen already collected and commented on for the most part one century ago <ref>45</ref>: the fact that the verb ''saba’a ''and the noun ''Sàbi ''<ref>46 </ref>(the latter being used always in its singular form <ref>47</ref>) are applied in these texts in reference to Muhammad and to the earlier members of the Muslim community <ref>48 </ref>does not imply that such words were of common use in Muhammad’s times or before him by the Arabic speakers. Consequently, D.S. Margoliouth seems to be right when expressing the opinion that ''saba’a'', ‘he changed his religion’, … appears to be an inference from the application of the name to Muhammad and his followers” <ref>49</ref>. In absence of other elements, it is surely more correct to follow this way of reasoning, and thus to think that – at least in relation to one (but a very important one, as we shall see) of the semantic values of the root ''SB’ ''– one has to do with a vicious circle. The reason why the Arabic verb ''saba’a ''could be applied to Islam’s first proselytes and to the Prophet who was announcing Allah and His Holy Word to mankind would not be that its meaning was “to change religion” or “to be converted” at those early times already; on the contrary, the verbal form would have been forced to include ''also ''that special meaning later on, only because all these people – and Muhammad with them - were usually described by their Meccan opponents by an epithet like “Sabians” <ref>50</ref>.
+
Likewise, we are not helped by the textual evidence contained within several ''hadith ''and ''sìra''’s writings <ref>44</ref>, which J. Wellhausen already collected and commented on for the most part one century ago <ref>45</ref>: the fact that the verb ''saba’a ''and the noun ''Sàbi ''<ref>46 </ref>(the latter being used always in its singular form <ref>47</ref>) are applied in these texts in reference to Muhammad and to the earlier members of the Muslim community <ref>48 </ref>does not imply that such words were of common use in Muhammad’s times or before him by the Arabic speakers. Consequently, D.S. Margoliouth seems to be right when expressing the opinion that ''''saba’a'', ‘he changed his religion’, … appears to be an inference from the application of the name to Muhammad and his followers'' <ref>49</ref>. In absence of other elements, it is surely more correct to follow this way of reasoning, and thus to think that – at least in relation to one (but a very important one, as we shall see) of the semantic values of the root ''SB’ ''– one has to do with a vicious circle. The reason why the Arabic verb ''saba’a ''could be applied to Islam’s first proselytes and to the Prophet who was announcing Allah and His Holy Word to mankind would not be that its meaning was ''to change religion'' or ''to be converted'' at those early times already; on the contrary, the verbal form would have been forced to include ''also ''that special meaning later on, only because all these people – and Muhammad with them - were usually described by their Meccan opponents by an epithet like ''Sabians'' <ref>50</ref>.
  
 
==The Hebrew Root ''SHUBH''===
 
==The Hebrew Root ''SHUBH''===
  
Actually such an opinion, to which we subscribed without reserve in our previous study, could only be half a truth. There exists in fact the Hebrew root ''SHUBH ''which is very interesting for our purposes, even if nobody – as far as we know – ever recognised any inter-linguistic relation between it and the two Arabic roots which we are dealing with. W.L. Holladay, for example, when surveying in chapter I of his ''Theroot SHUBH in the Old Testament, ''various instances of “the root in cognate languages”, records the verb ''tawaba ''which “occurs in classical Arabic in a great variety of meanings, some of them paralleling Hebrew usage. According to Lane’s ''Lexicon ''<ref>51 </ref>the verb in the first form has the meaning ‘he returned to a place to which he had come before’, exactly the central meaning which we shall assign to ''shùbh''; then, after having remembered two further uses of the verb in the IV form (causative) and in the X form (reflexive), he reckons among the “less assured proposals” a Jacob Barth’s suggestion, according to which “the adjectives ''sobhàbh'', ''sobhèbh ''‘disloyal, faithless’, and the noun ''meshùbhà ''‘faithlessness’, are to be distinguished from the Semitic root ''twb'', and to be rather connected with the Arabic root ''s’b''=''syb'', ‘free, untrammeled’ <ref>52</ref>.
+
Actually such an opinion, to which we subscribed without reserve in our previous study, could only be half a truth. There exists in fact the Hebrew root ''SHUBH ''which is very interesting for our purposes, even if nobody – as far as we know – ever recognised any inter-linguistic relation between it and the two Arabic roots which we are dealing with. W.L. Holladay, for example, when surveying in chapter I of his ''Theroot SHUBH in the Old Testament, ''various instances of ''the root in cognate languages'', records the verb ''tawaba ''which ''occurs in classical Arabic in a great variety of meanings, some of them paralleling Hebrew usage. According to Lane’s ''Lexicon ''<ref>51 </ref>the verb in the first form has the meaning ‘he returned to a place to which he had come before’, exactly the central meaning which we shall assign to ''shùbh''''; then, after having remembered two further uses of the verb in the IV form (causative) and in the X form (reflexive), he reckons among the ''less assured proposals'' a Jacob Barth’s suggestion, according to which ''the adjectives ''sobhàbh'', ''sobhèbh ''‘disloyal, faithless’, and the noun ''meshùbhà ''‘faithlessness’, are to be distinguished from the Semitic root ''twb'', and to be rather connected with the Arabic root ''s’b''=''syb'', ‘free, untrammeled’ '' <ref>52</ref>.
  
 
All this is rather strange, all the more so as the root ''SHUBH ''has been studied at length by scholars, who have analysed the abundant occurrence of the related verbs, nouns and adjectives through Old Testament texts, in order to deepen, in particular, the conception of apostasy and repentance in ancient Hebraic society <ref>53</ref>. Now, it is true that ''SHUBH ''and ''SB’''/''SBW ''diverge for many aspects and so can be only in part paralleled, but their convergence is all the more striking at least for one essential point: both roots show a characteristic ambiguity when expressing the relation between Man and God, an ambiguity which should be seen – we believe - as a consequence of the historical difficulties of focusing the idea of religious Conversion.
 
All this is rather strange, all the more so as the root ''SHUBH ''has been studied at length by scholars, who have analysed the abundant occurrence of the related verbs, nouns and adjectives through Old Testament texts, in order to deepen, in particular, the conception of apostasy and repentance in ancient Hebraic society <ref>53</ref>. Now, it is true that ''SHUBH ''and ''SB’''/''SBW ''diverge for many aspects and so can be only in part paralleled, but their convergence is all the more striking at least for one essential point: both roots show a characteristic ambiguity when expressing the relation between Man and God, an ambiguity which should be seen – we believe - as a consequence of the historical difficulties of focusing the idea of religious Conversion.
  
In other words, both roots which - it is worth stating here – include into their semantic field some basic meanings of physical motion without further implication, such as “to return, to revert (in ownership), to change into” (Hebrew) and “to incline, to be inclined, to tend, to lean” (Arabic), show in reference to religious meanings, also included by full right into their semantic field, a never-ending oscillation, a dialectics Good-Evil being destined to never stop, which reveals itself to be essentially the same in both cases. If, then, the Hebrew root may express the idea of “going away from God”, ''sc. ''of “apostasy”, and also at the same time that one of “return to God”, ''sc. ''of “repentance”, the Arabic root on the other side does not cease to hesitate between the idea of “inclining in the wrong direction (far from God), ''sc.'' of “apostasy”, and that one of “inclining in the right direction (towards God), ''sc. ''of “conversion”, even if the latter semantic value seems to fade in the background in comparison with the former one according to lexicographers and other interpreters <ref>54</ref>.
+
In other words, both roots which - it is worth stating here – include into their semantic field some basic meanings of physical motion without further implication, such as ''to return, to revert (in ownership), to change into'' (Hebrew) and ''to incline, to be inclined, to tend, to lean'' (Arabic), show in reference to religious meanings, also included by full right into their semantic field, a never-ending oscillation, a dialectics Good-Evil being destined to never stop, which reveals itself to be essentially the same in both cases. If, then, the Hebrew root may express the idea of ''going away from God'', ''sc. ''of ''apostasy'', and also at the same time that one of ''return to God'', ''sc. ''of ''repentance'', the Arabic root on the other side does not cease to hesitate between the idea of ''inclining in the wrong direction (far from God)'', ''sc.'' of ''apostasy'', and that one of ''inclining in the right direction (towards God)'', ''sc. ''of ''conversion'', even if the latter semantic value seems to fade in the background in comparison with the former one according to lexicographers and other interpreters <ref>54</ref>.
  
To dwell upon the reason why the semantic nuance of “conversion” replaced in Arabic the semantic nuance of “repentance” expressed by the Hebrew root would seem at first sight a waste of time, but we don’t find it completely useless to spend some words upon that aspect anyway. Arabians, or rather Muslims, did not get the One True God from the beginning, and had to wait for thousands of years for Muhammad’s prophecy and the chance to turn themselves to God by renouncing their old idols. It was the historical event of Allah’s Revelation by the Prophet that rendered the idea of Conversion completely real. Indeed, even before the beginning of the Muslim era, it was possible for any Arab to convert himself. But to What? To Whom? There were persons among the Arabs converted to Christianity or to Judaism, of course, namely Christian and Jewish Arabian communities whose importance was sometimes far from meagre mostly since the fifth century C.E. onwards <ref>55</ref>, but it was a minority phenomenon, chiefly in relation to central Arabia’s desert regions <ref>56</ref>, and in any case it lacked time to influence the lexicon of classical Arabic <ref>57</ref>. The main problem for the Jews, on the contrary, was always to go astray, to forget the Law of God and to fall down into idolatry; the plain word “Conversion”, which everybody takes for granted nowadays, meant nothing for them, since they were the elect and thus they could risk losing God only because of their sins. There was no need to look for Him, He was standing beside them, with them, since <ref>58 </ref>the Covenant between Him and Abraham had been made once for all: that is why the Hebrew root expresses the idea of “going away and coming back to the departure point” <ref>59</ref>, rather than that one of “turning oneself towards a certain direction”.
+
To dwell upon the reason why the semantic nuance of ''conversion'' replaced in Arabic the semantic nuance of ''repentance'' expressed by the Hebrew root would seem at first sight a waste of time, but we don’t find it completely useless to spend some words upon that aspect anyway. Arabians, or rather Muslims, did not get the One True God from the beginning, and had to wait for thousands of years for Muhammad’s prophecy and the chance to turn themselves to God by renouncing their old idols. It was the historical event of Allah’s Revelation by the Prophet that rendered the idea of Conversion completely real. Indeed, even before the beginning of the Muslim era, it was possible for any Arab to convert himself. But to What? To Whom? There were persons among the Arabs converted to Christianity or to Judaism, of course, namely Christian and Jewish Arabian communities whose importance was sometimes far from meagre mostly since the fifth century C.E. onwards <ref>55</ref>, but it was a minority phenomenon, chiefly in relation to central Arabia’s desert regions <ref>56</ref>, and in any case it lacked time to influence the lexicon of classical Arabic <ref>57</ref>. The main problem for the Jews, on the contrary, was always to go astray, to forget the Law of God and to fall down into idolatry; the plain word ''Conversion'', which everybody takes for granted nowadays, meant nothing for them, since they were the elect and thus they could risk losing God only because of their sins. There was no need to look for Him, He was standing beside them, with them, since <ref>58 </ref>the Covenant between Him and Abraham had been made once for all: that is why the Hebrew root expresses the idea of ''going away and coming back to the departure point'' <ref>59</ref>, rather than that one of ''turning oneself towards a certain direction''.
  
As we shall observe, the situation changes when Jews come in close contact with other peoples, that is when Proselytism begins to grow till it becomes a socially significant phenomenon both in Palestine and throughout the Diaspora communities <ref>60</ref>. But in order to name these men and women, whose number increased as time passed, who heard the call of ''Yahwè ''and who felt the need of “crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew” <ref>61 </ref>or of taking part of groups devoted to the Hebraic religion following some of its many precepts <ref>62</ref>, there generally existed other technical terms, or rather terms which gained over the course of centuries an unambiguous sense <ref>63</ref>.
+
As we shall observe, the situation changes when Jews come in close contact with other peoples, that is when Proselytism begins to grow till it becomes a socially significant phenomenon both in Palestine and throughout the Diaspora communities <ref>60</ref>. But in order to name these men and women, whose number increased as time passed, who heard the call of ''Yahwè ''and who felt the need of ''crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew'' <ref>61 </ref>or of taking part of groups devoted to the Hebraic religion following some of its many precepts <ref>62</ref>, there generally existed other technical terms, or rather terms which gained over the course of centuries an unambiguous sense <ref>63</ref>.
  
 
==Conversion==
 
==Conversion==
  
Actually, the general idea of Conversion had a significant historical development, and thus in the first period of the Christian era it was just at its very beginning, though the process had started centuries before and was to progress for many centuries. It is not possible to discuss here the history of the concept of Conversion, nor to follow the very slow evolution of the spiritual sense in the human societies of the ancient world. We must limit ourselves to look at some of Greek verbs/nouns most usually employed – beyond the term already noted – to translate the event in question, such as ''epistréphein/epistrophé ''and ''metanoéin/metànoia ''<ref>64</ref>, or to look at the parallel words in Hebrew when the texts to analyze are for example the Old Testament writings <ref>65</ref>, to realize how long and tortuous was the way leading to a full consciousness of that phenomenon: there came into light a special kind of religious feeling, a psychological event wholly different from any other one, and a subsequent chain of actions addressed towards a well determined goal, which needed only a single word in order to be clearly denoted. But where were the difficulties? What was so difficult to understand and to say by using just one word? To tell the truth, speaking of such a theme brings about a huge problem, and this may explain why, also in modern times, very few scholars feel like taking into consideration this subject: A.D. Nock’s ''Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustineof Hippo ''<ref>66 </ref>is an absolute exception on a bibliographical level, mostly because as he himself states: “This process of attraction has in the main been studied from the Christian point of view. What I have here tried to do is to look at it from the outside, and to that end I have devoted a substantial part of this book to a presentation of the advance in this same world of other forms of religion, many of them eastern in origins, and of other ways of life which also won adherents”. Nock <ref>67 </ref>stresses just from the outset a conceptual distinction, namely between the psychological process of “Conversion” and a less binding condition of getting spiritually involved such as “Adhesion” to a new religious cult and/or to new deities generally imported into one’s country from the outside by invaders <ref>68</ref>. Nevertheless, if the distinction is surely important for focusing on what happens in a man’s soul when he has to make with this sort of spiritual – and often practical too - choices, it is much less significant from an historical point of view.
+
Actually, the general idea of Conversion had a significant historical development, and thus in the first period of the Christian era it was just at its very beginning, though the process had started centuries before and was to progress for many centuries. It is not possible to discuss here the history of the concept of Conversion, nor to follow the very slow evolution of the spiritual sense in the human societies of the ancient world. We must limit ourselves to look at some of Greek verbs/nouns most usually employed – beyond the term already noted – to translate the event in question, such as ''epistréphein/epistrophé ''and ''metanoéin/metànoia ''<ref>64</ref>, or to look at the parallel words in Hebrew when the texts to analyze are for example the Old Testament writings <ref>65</ref>, to realize how long and tortuous was the way leading to a full consciousness of that phenomenon: there came into light a special kind of religious feeling, a psychological event wholly different from any other one, and a subsequent chain of actions addressed towards a well determined goal, which needed only a single word in order to be clearly denoted. But where were the difficulties? What was so difficult to understand and to say by using just one word? To tell the truth, speaking of such a theme brings about a huge problem, and this may explain why, also in modern times, very few scholars feel like taking into consideration this subject: A.D. Nock’s ''Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustineof Hippo ''<ref>66 </ref>is an absolute exception on a bibliographical level, mostly because as he himself states: ''This process of attraction has in the main been studied from the Christian point of view. What I have here tried to do is to look at it from the outside, and to that end I have devoted a substantial part of this book to a presentation of the advance in this same world of other forms of religion, many of them eastern in origins, and of other ways of life which also won adherents''. Nock <ref>67 </ref>stresses just from the outset a conceptual distinction, namely between the psychological process of ''Conversion'' and a less binding condition of getting spiritually involved such as ''Adhesion'' to a new religious cult and/or to new deities generally imported into one’s country from the outside by invaders <ref>68</ref>. Nevertheless, if the distinction is surely important for focusing on what happens in a man’s soul when he has to make with this sort of spiritual – and often practical too - choices, it is much less significant from an historical point of view.
  
In the latter sense, what really counts a lot is another factor, that is the deep transformational process which a society undergoes when it is invested by a strong religious stream, by a high spiritual fever. It is not accidental that some scholars have presented the religious groups which are at the centre of our attention under alternative names such as “Sympathizers” <ref>69 </ref>or just as “Adherents” <ref>70</ref>, instead of the usual “God-Fearers” (''Phoboùmenoi tòn Theòn'', ''Metuentes Deum'') and/or “God- Worshippers” (''Sebòmenoi tòn Theòn''/''Theosebéis'', ''Colentes Deum'') <ref>71</ref>: these names seem to correspond better to historical facts, since the people in question often did not change very much their way of life and their habits, limiting themselves to being present at the synagogue’s rites in quality of simple attendants and to obeying to some precepts of Judaism that generally enjoyed a large sympathy among pagans, for instance ''Sabbath''’s observance with candles and oil lamps’ lighting during Friday night or abstention from pork <ref>72</ref>.
+
In the latter sense, what really counts a lot is another factor, that is the deep transformational process which a society undergoes when it is invested by a strong religious stream, by a high spiritual fever. It is not accidental that some scholars have presented the religious groups which are at the centre of our attention under alternative names such as ''Sympathizers'' <ref>69 </ref>or just as ''Adherents'' <ref>70</ref>, instead of the usual ''God-Fearers'' (''Phoboùmenoi tòn Theòn'', ''Metuentes Deum'') and/or ''God- Worshippers'' (''Sebòmenoi tòn Theòn''/''Theosebéis'', ''Colentes Deum'') <ref>71</ref>: these names seem to correspond better to historical facts, since the people in question often did not change very much their way of life and their habits, limiting themselves to being present at the synagogue’s rites in quality of simple attendants and to obeying to some precepts of Judaism that generally enjoyed a large sympathy among pagans, for instance ''Sabbath''’s observance with candles and oil lamps’ lighting during Friday night or abstention from pork <ref>72</ref>.
  
So, what is really the crucial factor for the historical development of religious ideas, and therefore for the human history itself, is not the more or less spiritual selfinvolving of individuals in a new faith or in new religious beliefs; it is the radical change of the religious horizon during the period included – we may follow here Nock’s chronological model – from “Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo”. It is a space of time much longer than half a millennium, but it is difficult to consider a shorter one for examining what happened in men’s souls and in their sensibility in respect to the role which religion had for human destiny <ref>73</ref>.
+
So, what is really the crucial factor for the historical development of religious ideas, and therefore for the human history itself, is not the more or less spiritual selfinvolving of individuals in a new faith or in new religious beliefs; it is the radical change of the religious horizon during the period included – we may follow here Nock’s chronological model – from ''Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo''. It is a space of time much longer than half a millennium, but it is difficult to consider a shorter one for examining what happened in men’s souls and in their sensibility in respect to the role which religion had for human destiny <ref>73</ref>.
  
 
==Pagan Monotheism==
 
==Pagan Monotheism==
  
Unfortunately, it is only very recently that people have begun to be conscious not only that a complex social-religious movement specially devoted to One Most-High God historically existed and was profoundly and widely diffused in the alleged “Pagan World” (into European, Near Eastern, North African regions included in the Roman Empire, and even beyond it), but also that this event eventually made it possibile to speak about a phenomenon such as “Pagan Monotheism” <ref>74</ref>. Thirty years ago, in fact, and even less, probably such an expression would have been seen just as a blasphemy: the concept of “Henotheism” was the maximum that people were generally disposed to admit in reference to the Pagans’ horizon of thought <ref>75</ref>; the conceptual space of “Monotheism” was – apologies for the pun – a monopoly of the Revealed Great Religions, a sort of private property of Judaism and Christianity.
+
Unfortunately, it is only very recently that people have begun to be conscious not only that a complex social-religious movement specially devoted to One Most-High God historically existed and was profoundly and widely diffused in the alleged ''Pagan World'' (into European, Near Eastern, North African regions included in the Roman Empire, and even beyond it), but also that this event eventually made it possibile to speak about a phenomenon such as ''Pagan Monotheism'' <ref>74</ref>. Thirty years ago, in fact, and even less, probably such an expression would have been seen just as a blasphemy: the concept of ''Henotheism'' was the maximum that people were generally disposed to admit in reference to the Pagans’ horizon of thought <ref>75</ref>; the conceptual space of ''Monotheism'' was – apologies for the pun – a monopoly of the Revealed Great Religions, a sort of private property of Judaism and Christianity.
  
But the new framework of Late Antiquity’s “pagan” piety which begins step by step to be drawn in the last years weakens to a certain extent the traditional boundary line between Revealed, or Prophetic, Religions and Pagan Religions <ref>76</ref>, because - as the latest research makes more and more clear – what one thought to be still in existence during the first centuries of the Christian Era plainly did not exist any longer. It is of secondary importance to know which Supernatural Beings people believed in, which new, or old, deities they were devoted to, as well as which kind of hopes and expectations they placed in them: what deeply changed was people’s attitude of mind towards Religion in general, not only in the sense that, after a certain historical period, people began to seek into Religion an answer to their fears, a solution to their problems about death, a virtual salvation (''soterìa'')<ref>77 </ref>to their souls.
+
But the new framework of Late Antiquity’s ''pagan'' piety which begins step by step to be drawn in the last years weakens to a certain extent the traditional boundary line between Revealed, or Prophetic, Religions and Pagan Religions <ref>76</ref>, because - as the latest research makes more and more clear – what one thought to be still in existence during the first centuries of the Christian Era plainly did not exist any longer. It is of secondary importance to know which Supernatural Beings people believed in, which new, or old, deities they were devoted to, as well as which kind of hopes and expectations they placed in them: what deeply changed was people’s attitude of mind towards Religion in general, not only in the sense that, after a certain historical period, people began to seek into Religion an answer to their fears, a solution to their problems about death, a virtual salvation (''soterìa'')<ref>77 </ref>to their souls.
  
Everybody knows, for instance, that since the second century C.E. a new faith in Oriental cults (Cybele, Isis, Mithra, Mèn, Sabazios, Dyonisos etc.) <ref>78 </ref>spread in the Roman Empire for the same reasons that previously had gained followers to Greek Mysteric Religions, Orphism and Eleusynian Mysteries <ref>79</ref>, namely the novice’s hope to obtain his own soul’s salvation after having successfully passed the initiation rites by rule and after having consequently entered to be part by full right of some community of “Elects”. Indeed, it is not such a thing which we mean by saying “change of people’s attitude of mind”, and therefore perhaps an example is needed to explain better what we wish to express.
+
Everybody knows, for instance, that since the second century C.E. a new faith in Oriental cults (Cybele, Isis, Mithra, Mèn, Sabazios, Dyonisos etc.) <ref>78 </ref>spread in the Roman Empire for the same reasons that previously had gained followers to Greek Mysteric Religions, Orphism and Eleusynian Mysteries <ref>79</ref>, namely the novice’s hope to obtain his own soul’s salvation after having successfully passed the initiation rites by rule and after having consequently entered to be part by full right of some community of ''Elects''. Indeed, it is not such a thing which we mean by saying ''change of people’s attitude of mind'', and therefore perhaps an example is needed to explain better what we wish to express.
  
==The “Pious” Roman Emperors==
+
==The ''Pious'' Roman Emperors==
  
In her bestseller ''Hadrian’s Memoirs ''the French writer Marguerite Yourcenar too, according to a historically well-consolidated opinion, lets the old-aged emperor’s choice for his successor to the imperial see finally fall on “a certain” senator Antoninus, whose “greatest care in respect of the old weary father” (who was often present with him at the Senate’s assemblies) had brought him the nickname “Pious”: for Hadrian this detail seemed sufficient to consider him a trustworthy person <ref>80</ref>. The anecdote was always so successful that nobody ever doubted about its truthfulness, and there would be no problem. The problem arises, nevertheless, when one realizes that, unlike what happens in explaining in such a simple way the alleged origin of Antoninus’ nickname, no reason is given to explain why Roman emperors after him continued for many centuries to be named in the same way – ''i.e. ''continued to display, as Roman Imperial coinage shows at great length, beside their own proper names and the traditional epithet ''Augustus ''(''Sebastòs ''in Roman Empire’s Greek coinage) <ref>81 </ref>a further and meaningful one such as ''Pius ''(''Eusebés'') <ref>82</ref>.
+
In her bestseller ''Hadrian’s Memoirs ''the French writer Marguerite Yourcenar too, according to a historically well-consolidated opinion, lets the old-aged emperor’s choice for his successor to the imperial see finally fall on ''a certain'' senator Antoninus, whose ''greatest care in respect of the old weary father'' (who was often present with him at the Senate’s assemblies) had brought him the nickname ''Pious'': for Hadrian this detail seemed sufficient to consider him a trustworthy person <ref>80</ref>. The anecdote was always so successful that nobody ever doubted about its truthfulness, and there would be no problem. The problem arises, nevertheless, when one realizes that, unlike what happens in explaining in such a simple way the alleged origin of Antoninus’ nickname, no reason is given to explain why Roman emperors after him continued for many centuries to be named in the same way – ''i.e. ''continued to display, as Roman Imperial coinage shows at great length, beside their own proper names and the traditional epithet ''Augustus ''(''Sebastòs ''in Roman Empire’s Greek coinage) <ref>81 </ref>a further and meaningful one such as ''Pius ''(''Eusebés'') <ref>82</ref>.
  
What has happened since that time? Why had Roman Emperors to declare openly their religious feelings, to exhibit publicly their strict religious observance? It is noteworthy that this usage did not cease with the end of the period of the so-called “Foster-Emperors” <ref>83 </ref>whose human qualities for lack of any degree of kinship between them (that is in absence of any family’s dynastic line) had to be first of all wisdom, justice and courage; it is not possible, in other words, to find any special link between the beginnings of such displayed “devoutness” by Roman Emperors and the human qualities which they had to possess in order to be considered worthy of succeeding to the throne, as if this devoutness was just another way of naming “Philosophy”, a discipline which Marcus Aurelius was the best entitled among the Caesars to entrust the government of the State to <ref>84</ref>.
+
What has happened since that time? Why had Roman Emperors to declare openly their religious feelings, to exhibit publicly their strict religious observance? It is noteworthy that this usage did not cease with the end of the period of the so-called ''Foster-Emperors'' <ref>83 </ref>whose human qualities for lack of any degree of kinship between them (that is in absence of any family’s dynastic line) had to be first of all wisdom, justice and courage; it is not possible, in other words, to find any special link between the beginnings of such displayed ''devoutness'' by Roman Emperors and the human qualities which they had to possess in order to be considered worthy of succeeding to the throne, as if this devoutness was just another way of naming ''Philosophy'', a discipline which Marcus Aurelius was the best entitled among the Caesars to entrust the government of the State to <ref>84</ref>.
  
But even more striking is the choice of the word itself, ''pius/eusebés'', when one reflects over the well-known circumstance that the term ''pietas ''in Latin, just like ''eusébeia ''in Greek, is quite a hazy synonymous of our “Religion” <ref>85</ref>: the idea of ''pietas/ eusébeia'', in fact, had previously so much to do with civic affairs and municipal duties <ref>86 </ref>that there were dignities of the state, magistracies, just having the assignment of bearing the religious service; on the contrary, it had very little to do with spiritual feelings. When Antoninus together with his successors publicly states to be “Pious”, therefore, he is not simply admitting to be the ''Pontifex Maximus ''as already Octavian did one century and half before, collecting for the first time in the history of Rome into the hands of only one person – the ''Princeps ''- the political and the religious power <ref>87</ref>: we can be sure of that. It would seem that the Jews, whose struggles for independence came to a final end just under Antoninus’ principality owing to their defeat during the Second Judaic War <ref>88</ref>(in consequence of which the tolerant position of the Roman government towards the Jews - which was not seldom something more than that, namely a political position in open support of them <ref>89</ref>- so deeply changed that new laws started to be put into force all over the Roman Empire forbidding circumcision for converted Jews under penalty of death <ref>90</ref>: an event which historically stopped, or radically restrained anyway, the process of Judaic Proselytism) <ref>91</ref>, after having lost the match on the battle-field, took their revenge on a cultural level, forcing the Romans to put aside their traditional religious tolerance towards subjected peoples, and almost to compete with them in religious affairs <ref>92</ref>.
+
But even more striking is the choice of the word itself, ''pius/eusebés'', when one reflects over the well-known circumstance that the term ''pietas ''in Latin, just like ''eusébeia ''in Greek, is quite a hazy synonymous of our ''Religion'' <ref>85</ref>: the idea of ''pietas/ eusébeia'', in fact, had previously so much to do with civic affairs and municipal duties <ref>86 </ref>that there were dignities of the state, magistracies, just having the assignment of bearing the religious service; on the contrary, it had very little to do with spiritual feelings. When Antoninus together with his successors publicly states to be ''Pious'', therefore, he is not simply admitting to be the ''Pontifex Maximus ''as already Octavian did one century and half before, collecting for the first time in the history of Rome into the hands of only one person – the ''Princeps ''- the political and the religious power <ref>87</ref>: we can be sure of that. It would seem that the Jews, whose struggles for independence came to a final end just under Antoninus’ principality owing to their defeat during the Second Judaic War <ref>88</ref>(in consequence of which the tolerant position of the Roman government towards the Jews - which was not seldom something more than that, namely a political position in open support of them <ref>89</ref>- so deeply changed that new laws started to be put into force all over the Roman Empire forbidding circumcision for converted Jews under penalty of death <ref>90</ref>: an event which historically stopped, or radically restrained anyway, the process of Judaic Proselytism) <ref>91</ref>, after having lost the match on the battle-field, took their revenge on a cultural level, forcing the Romans to put aside their traditional religious tolerance towards subjected peoples, and almost to compete with them in religious affairs <ref>92</ref>.
  
 
A puzzling document of the spiritual trend in action since the beginnings of our Era onwards throughout the Roman Empire is a curious apocryphal correspondence usually titled ''Antoninus and the Rabbi ''<ref>93</ref>. Both characters are not better defined by the anonymous author of the text, dating back to the III c. C.E., and belonging apparently to the Palestinian Jewry’s doctrinal milieu. But the interest which it represents for the scholar is unquestionable beyond any philological observation. It provides in fact further proof of a moral and intellectual landscape where the influence of the most relevant feature of Jewish culture, the faith in One (Most-High) God, is spreading around with more and more strength <ref>94 </ref>till it arrives, as we have said, to be (quasi-) universally acknowledged in terms of something different from a strictly religious sign: it has already gained the status of the civilized man’s typical reference-mark <ref>95</ref>, without which no highly-developed culture might blossom. Here, long before Costantine’s Conversion to Christianity <ref>96</ref>, the Roman Emperor is seen as being ready to embrace Monotheism, to which doctrine therefore the Jewish traditionist, the Rabbi, gradually educates him by sweeping away his natural uncertainties and making him finally convinced <ref>97</ref>.
 
A puzzling document of the spiritual trend in action since the beginnings of our Era onwards throughout the Roman Empire is a curious apocryphal correspondence usually titled ''Antoninus and the Rabbi ''<ref>93</ref>. Both characters are not better defined by the anonymous author of the text, dating back to the III c. C.E., and belonging apparently to the Palestinian Jewry’s doctrinal milieu. But the interest which it represents for the scholar is unquestionable beyond any philological observation. It provides in fact further proof of a moral and intellectual landscape where the influence of the most relevant feature of Jewish culture, the faith in One (Most-High) God, is spreading around with more and more strength <ref>94 </ref>till it arrives, as we have said, to be (quasi-) universally acknowledged in terms of something different from a strictly religious sign: it has already gained the status of the civilized man’s typical reference-mark <ref>95</ref>, without which no highly-developed culture might blossom. Here, long before Costantine’s Conversion to Christianity <ref>96</ref>, the Roman Emperor is seen as being ready to embrace Monotheism, to which doctrine therefore the Jewish traditionist, the Rabbi, gradually educates him by sweeping away his natural uncertainties and making him finally convinced <ref>97</ref>.
Line 85: Line 85:
 
To be a valorous military commander is no longer enough to be ''Imperator'', ''Princeps'', ''Dux''; in other words, the Emperor cannot possess the moral qualities necessary for being a good chief, courage, justice and wisdom, without proving that he is at the same time a religious man. If the Roman Emperors of the Golden Age and later on took upon themselves the responsibility of Religion in such a striking way, that could not happen outside of the predominantly spiritual horizon of the period. The popular idea of Religion changes, or rather it has changed already.
 
To be a valorous military commander is no longer enough to be ''Imperator'', ''Princeps'', ''Dux''; in other words, the Emperor cannot possess the moral qualities necessary for being a good chief, courage, justice and wisdom, without proving that he is at the same time a religious man. If the Roman Emperors of the Golden Age and later on took upon themselves the responsibility of Religion in such a striking way, that could not happen outside of the predominantly spiritual horizon of the period. The popular idea of Religion changes, or rather it has changed already.
  
The borderline between ''eusebés/eusebèia ''and ''theosebés/theosebèia ''is not as sharp as it seems <ref>98</ref>. It is true that the group of the first nouns usually refers to “pagan” piety, while the second one is ascribed to people who were maturing in themselves the idea of and the consequent devotion to One Supreme Deity, who, to sum up, were spiritually close to a Monotheistic conception <ref>99</ref>. But it is just the historical development of the events that reduces such differences. As long as the idea of One Supreme Deity was entirely monopolized by the Jews, a massive boundary-line between their religious views and the other ones was fully justifiable: only “Sympathizers” or “Adherents” to Judaism – in addition to native Jews and Proselytes, of course - had the right to bear such a honourable title as ''theosebés ''<ref>100</ref>. But with the rise of Christianity the religious universal pattern begins to move, and variable factors come into play which were not foreseen or foreseeable by anybody: it is not by chance, for example, that just the epithets ''eusebés ''and ''theosebés ''(often in a superlative form) in the fifth century C.E. have become a sort of honourable title traditionally borne by Christian bishops or Christian pious men <ref>101</ref>, while at the beginnings of the Christian Era (I-III cc.) one almost always finds it in Judaic contexts, even if nobody could be very sure of such Judaizers’ sincere piety, and know with certainty whether their spiritual approach to Judaism was due to a real “sympathy” towards that “exotic” religion as a whole, or towards a single aspect of it, as it often appears to have been the faith in One Most-High God.
+
The borderline between ''eusebés/eusebèia ''and ''theosebés/theosebèia ''is not as sharp as it seems <ref>98</ref>. It is true that the group of the first nouns usually refers to ''pagan'' piety, while the second one is ascribed to people who were maturing in themselves the idea of and the consequent devotion to One Supreme Deity, who, to sum up, were spiritually close to a Monotheistic conception <ref>99</ref>. But it is just the historical development of the events that reduces such differences. As long as the idea of One Supreme Deity was entirely monopolized by the Jews, a massive boundary-line between their religious views and the other ones was fully justifiable: only ''Sympathizers'' or ''Adherents'' to Judaism – in addition to native Jews and Proselytes, of course - had the right to bear such a honourable title as ''theosebés ''<ref>100</ref>. But with the rise of Christianity the religious universal pattern begins to move, and variable factors come into play which were not foreseen or foreseeable by anybody: it is not by chance, for example, that just the epithets ''eusebés ''and ''theosebés ''(often in a superlative form) in the fifth century C.E. have become a sort of honourable title traditionally borne by Christian bishops or Christian pious men <ref>101</ref>, while at the beginnings of the Christian Era (I-III cc.) one almost always finds it in Judaic contexts, even if nobody could be very sure of such Judaizers’ sincere piety, and know with certainty whether their spiritual approach to Judaism was due to a real ''sympathy'' towards that ''exotic'' religion as a whole, or towards a single aspect of it, as it often appears to have been the faith in One Most-High God.
  
An evident indication of this kind of spiritual attitude comes from the field of Onomastics: the growing use of names such as ''Theoctistes'', ''Theodorus'', ''Theodoulos'' by individuals who choose to give to their sons similar names is a clear testimony of that. As Stephen Mitchell rightly stressed, in fact, “the prefix ''theo- ''should not be understood in a loose sense as referring to any god, but precisely to the highest, the one and only god, whom they revered” <ref>102</ref>. But even more relevant for our purposes is a complementary chain of proper names, whose semantic bulk is represented by the concept of “piety”, and whose rendering in Greek is therefore seized by the words ''eusèbeia''/(''theo'')''sébeia''. We have to do with a linguistic reality which we believe to be quite unparalleled throughout the whole history of Onomastics, because there exists a real “host” – for sure no less than one hundred! - of these names: we limit ourselves to citing just the beginning of this never-ending chain, to suggest the dimensions that such a social-religious phenomenon took, specially in imperial times: ''Sàbaos, Sàbos,Sàbbos, Sàbeos, Sàbbeos, Sabbéos, Sabiàn, Sabia, Sabaò, Sabà, Sàbeis, Sàbbeis,Sàbis, Saìbéos, Sabbé, Sabe, Sabés, Sabé, Sabès, Sabaìos, Sabbaìos ''… <ref>103</ref>. If, moreover, one considers that each noun could be connected with several prefixes such as ''theo- ''and eu''- ''<ref>104</ref>, and that the place of the first letter, ''sigma'', could be occupied by a ''zeta ''or even by a ''tau-zeta ''<ref>105 </ref>(which Greek letters are a common alphabetical transcription of the Semitic alphabets’ emphatic sibilant) <ref>106</ref>, one can easily imagine how huge the number of the possible compounds might be!
+
An evident indication of this kind of spiritual attitude comes from the field of Onomastics: the growing use of names such as ''Theoctistes'', ''Theodorus'', ''Theodoulos'' by individuals who choose to give to their sons similar names is a clear testimony of that. As Stephen Mitchell rightly stressed, in fact, ''the prefix ''theo- ''should not be understood in a loose sense as referring to any god, but precisely to the highest, the one and only god, whom they revered'' <ref>102</ref>. But even more relevant for our purposes is a complementary chain of proper names, whose semantic bulk is represented by the concept of ''piety'', and whose rendering in Greek is therefore seized by the words ''eusèbeia''/(''theo'')''sébeia''. We have to do with a linguistic reality which we believe to be quite unparalleled throughout the whole history of Onomastics, because there exists a real ''host'' – for sure no less than one hundred! - of these names: we limit ourselves to citing just the beginning of this never-ending chain, to suggest the dimensions that such a social-religious phenomenon took, specially in imperial times: ''Sàbaos, Sàbos,Sàbbos, Sàbeos, Sàbbeos, Sabbéos, Sabiàn, Sabia, Sabaò, Sabà, Sàbeis, Sàbbeis,Sàbis, Saìbéos, Sabbé, Sabe, Sabés, Sabé, Sabès, Sabaìos, Sabbaìos ''… <ref>103</ref>. If, moreover, one considers that each noun could be connected with several prefixes such as ''theo- ''and eu''- ''<ref>104</ref>, and that the place of the first letter, ''sigma'', could be occupied by a ''zeta ''or even by a ''tau-zeta ''<ref>105 </ref>(which Greek letters are a common alphabetical transcription of the Semitic alphabets’ emphatic sibilant) <ref>106</ref>, one can easily imagine how huge the number of the possible compounds might be!
  
The problem is that sometimes the true nature of these names is, in our opinion, misunderstood by scholars as a consequence of the … “Indoeuropean Mirage” once again! A brief survey of Greco-Syrian epigraphic findings is enough to become aware of that: here, in fact, very often the proper name ''Sàbaos ''recurs which, according to the scientific dominant opinion, should be the written rendering in Greek of the Arabian name ''Sabah ''(hypokoristikon ''Shubayh'') <ref>107</ref>. Against such a linguistic correspondence, two important factors play a crucial role yet: 1) a very meagre presence, indeed, of the name ''Sabah ''throughout the ''Corpus InscriptionumSemiticarum ''<ref>108</ref>, which by no means justifies a similar “host” of these names in Greco- Syrian epigraphy; 2) the interpretation of the name given by different scholars, who do not agree with each other and who consequently make one think that the alleged correspondence ''Sàbaos''-''Sabah ''is real only in a small number of cases <ref>109</ref>.
+
The problem is that sometimes the true nature of these names is, in our opinion, misunderstood by scholars as a consequence of the … ''Indoeuropean Mirage'' once again! A brief survey of Greco-Syrian epigraphic findings is enough to become aware of that: here, in fact, very often the proper name ''Sàbaos ''recurs which, according to the scientific dominant opinion, should be the written rendering in Greek of the Arabian name ''Sabah ''(hypokoristikon ''Shubayh'') <ref>107</ref>. Against such a linguistic correspondence, two important factors play a crucial role yet: 1) a very meagre presence, indeed, of the name ''Sabah ''throughout the ''Corpus InscriptionumSemiticarum ''<ref>108</ref>, which by no means justifies a similar ''host'' of these names in Greco- Syrian epigraphy; 2) the interpretation of the name given by different scholars, who do not agree with each other and who consequently make one think that the alleged correspondence ''Sàbaos''-''Sabah ''is real only in a small number of cases <ref>109</ref>.
  
To sum up, we believe that ''Sàbaos ''(and most of the names with similar spellings in Greek writing) is nothing else than one of the several forms of the common Hebrew anthroponim ''Sambathios ''(''Sabbath ''observant”), to which subject Tchrikower dedicated a classical study <ref>110</ref>: both the hypokoristikon ''Sabbàs'', ''Sambàs'', already recorded by Tchrikower <ref>111</ref>, and the Hebraic expression ''Shabbos goy'', pointing at the “stranger” able to carry out the activities forbidden to Jews in days of rest <ref>112</ref>, seem to prove it sufficiently. It is worth remembering that to give to one’s sons such names shaped by the noun ''Sabbath ''was fashionable among the Pagans who – as for example Juvenal’s famous father ''metuens sabbata ''<ref>113 </ref>– sympathized with Judaism, since that was a very impressive aspect for popular imagination <ref>114</ref>. But in the meantime we cannot rule out that a linguistic intersection of these names with those linked with the (''theo'')''sèbeia''’s idea, as well as with those other words phonetically close to it which we have observed, had often taken place.
+
To sum up, we believe that ''Sàbaos ''(and most of the names with similar spellings in Greek writing) is nothing else than one of the several forms of the common Hebrew anthroponim ''Sambathios ''(''''Sabbath ''observant''), to which subject Tchrikower dedicated a classical study <ref>110</ref>: both the hypokoristikon ''Sabbàs'', ''Sambàs'', already recorded by Tchrikower <ref>111</ref>, and the Hebraic expression ''Shabbos goy'', pointing at the ''stranger'' able to carry out the activities forbidden to Jews in days of rest <ref>112</ref>, seem to prove it sufficiently. It is worth remembering that to give to one’s sons such names shaped by the noun ''Sabbath ''was fashionable among the Pagans who – as for example Juvenal’s famous father ''metuens sabbata ''<ref>113 </ref>– sympathized with Judaism, since that was a very impressive aspect for popular imagination <ref>114</ref>. But in the meantime we cannot rule out that a linguistic intersection of these names with those linked with the (''theo'')''sèbeia''’s idea, as well as with those other words phonetically close to it which we have observed, had often taken place.
  
 
==Eusèbeia and Gnòsis==
 
==Eusèbeia and Gnòsis==
  
It is difficult to say how much the historical phenomenon of the rise of Christianity contributed to the new popular idea of Religion which becomes stronger and stronger as time passes by <ref>115</ref>. Surely for a certain period it increased the confusion, and not only because of the difficulties in distinguishing between Jews and Christians, and thus to recognize Christianity as an autonomous cult by the Roman government and, more in general, by “the others” <ref>116</ref>. Actually, as S. Mitchell opportunely pointed out, “the cult of ''Theòs Hypsistos ''and the monotheistic conceptions of a wide-spread and popular religious culture were the seed-beds into which Jewish and Christian theology could readily be planted. Without them, the transformation of ancient patterns of belief from pagan polytheism to the predominantly monotheistic systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would not only have been far less tidy and unidirectional than it was, it might not have occurred at all” <ref>117</ref>.
+
It is difficult to say how much the historical phenomenon of the rise of Christianity contributed to the new popular idea of Religion which becomes stronger and stronger as time passes by <ref>115</ref>. Surely for a certain period it increased the confusion, and not only because of the difficulties in distinguishing between Jews and Christians, and thus to recognize Christianity as an autonomous cult by the Roman government and, more in general, by ''the others'' <ref>116</ref>. Actually, as S. Mitchell opportunely pointed out, ''the cult of ''Theòs Hypsistos ''and the monotheistic conceptions of a wide-spread and popular religious culture were the seed-beds into which Jewish and Christian theology could readily be planted. Without them, the transformation of ancient patterns of belief from pagan polytheism to the predominantly monotheistic systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would not only have been far less tidy and unidirectional than it was, it might not have occurred at all'' <ref>117</ref>.
  
That is one of the reasons why, in our opinion, the concept of “Henotheism” needs today to be considered old-fashioned and out-of-date. It counts for little that the Highest God rules by Himself or with the help of more or less numerous subordinate deities. Piety occupies now a space much larger than before, namely the moral-ethical one; it has become a sort of intellectual affair, a quality whose absence looks like being in open conflict with the concept of evolved civilization in itself. As was to happen in the Islamic world, when Greek philosophy and, more generally, Hellenic culture began to be known and loved by Muslims, for many of whom it was inconceivable that Plato or Aristotle had worked out their doctrines about the Supreme Good or the Primal Cause without being Monotheists <ref>118</ref>, in the Roman world too a Monotheistic trend quite rapidly became the common habit of mind of every educated person. So, if Cicero might still state ''… cognitionem deorum, e quaoritur pietas'', thus maintaining in the foreground the idea of the plurality of gods <ref>119</ref>, Seneca had made a crucial and irreversible step forwards by writing a sentence such as ''Deum colit qui novit ''<ref>120</ref>. But here, there is also something more than that: one recognizes in fact that a strong link between Religion and Knowledge, ''Eusèbeia ''and ''Gnosis ''<ref>121 </ref>has come already into existence, a circumstance which bears witness to what we were saying about the cultural framework gaining ground since the II century onwards into Late Antiquity.
+
That is one of the reasons why, in our opinion, the concept of ''Henotheism'' needs today to be considered old-fashioned and out-of-date. It counts for little that the Highest God rules by Himself or with the help of more or less numerous subordinate deities. Piety occupies now a space much larger than before, namely the moral-ethical one; it has become a sort of intellectual affair, a quality whose absence looks like being in open conflict with the concept of evolved civilization in itself. As was to happen in the Islamic world, when Greek philosophy and, more generally, Hellenic culture began to be known and loved by Muslims, for many of whom it was inconceivable that Plato or Aristotle had worked out their doctrines about the Supreme Good or the Primal Cause without being Monotheists <ref>118</ref>, in the Roman world too a Monotheistic trend quite rapidly became the common habit of mind of every educated person. So, if Cicero might still state ''… cognitionem deorum, e quaoritur pietas'', thus maintaining in the foreground the idea of the plurality of gods <ref>119</ref>, Seneca had made a crucial and irreversible step forwards by writing a sentence such as ''Deum colit qui novit ''<ref>120</ref>. But here, there is also something more than that: one recognizes in fact that a strong link between Religion and Knowledge, ''Eusèbeia ''and ''Gnosis ''<ref>121 </ref>has come already into existence, a circumstance which bears witness to what we were saying about the cultural framework gaining ground since the II century onwards into Late Antiquity.
  
Usually, the connection between these two faculties, by stressing mostly the second one, is seen as a distinguishing mark of Hermetism: one finds in the ''CorpusHermeticum ''a sentence stating that “Piety is the Knowledge of God” <ref>122</ref>, or very similar ones. The reason is clear: knowledge is no longer the mind’s contemplation of eternal truths; it has become action, technical operation, and therefore it cannot but invest the sphere of Holiness, because it must force all the powers of Nature and Darkness – the will of gods, angels and demons - in order to fulfil what one desires. But establishing such a link had happened long before entering into the Hermetists’ program <ref>123</ref>, since for many people it was already a fact of common sense.
+
Usually, the connection between these two faculties, by stressing mostly the second one, is seen as a distinguishing mark of Hermetism: one finds in the ''CorpusHermeticum ''a sentence stating that ''Piety is the Knowledge of God'' <ref>122</ref>, or very similar ones. The reason is clear: knowledge is no longer the mind’s contemplation of eternal truths; it has become action, technical operation, and therefore it cannot but invest the sphere of Holiness, because it must force all the powers of Nature and Darkness – the will of gods, angels and demons - in order to fulfil what one desires. But establishing such a link had happened long before entering into the Hermetists’ program <ref>123</ref>, since for many people it was already a fact of common sense.
  
 
That is not to claim that people did not try to defend the originality and the uniqueness of their own religious position: M. Simon for instance had rightly stressed how careful Western Christianity was in selecting the Latin divine attribute for naming the Supreme Height of God in its liturgy. Christians, in fact, were perfectly aware of the danger that their God might be confused with other Highest Deities, and so they paid special attention to that, by wavering for a long time between epithets such as ''Summus'', ''Altissimus'', ''Exuperantissimus ''<ref>124 </ref>etc. in order to make a lexical choice able to state God’s absolute transcendence without being at the meantime ambiguous for the believers <ref>125</ref>. Indeed Christianity, as we shall see better later on, did run a risk of confusion with other religious groups whose principal feature was the common faith in One Most-High Deity, even if such a phenomenon was probably limited to certain geographical areas and to certain historical periods <ref>126</ref>. Here, we wish to record just one example in this sense, because of its connections with our main theme which – as far as we know – nobody till now had ever noticed.
 
That is not to claim that people did not try to defend the originality and the uniqueness of their own religious position: M. Simon for instance had rightly stressed how careful Western Christianity was in selecting the Latin divine attribute for naming the Supreme Height of God in its liturgy. Christians, in fact, were perfectly aware of the danger that their God might be confused with other Highest Deities, and so they paid special attention to that, by wavering for a long time between epithets such as ''Summus'', ''Altissimus'', ''Exuperantissimus ''<ref>124 </ref>etc. in order to make a lexical choice able to state God’s absolute transcendence without being at the meantime ambiguous for the believers <ref>125</ref>. Indeed Christianity, as we shall see better later on, did run a risk of confusion with other religious groups whose principal feature was the common faith in One Most-High Deity, even if such a phenomenon was probably limited to certain geographical areas and to certain historical periods <ref>126</ref>. Here, we wish to record just one example in this sense, because of its connections with our main theme which – as far as we know – nobody till now had ever noticed.
Line 107: Line 107:
 
Vincentius’ tomb in Rome has been studied at length by archaeologists since its discovery in 1856 in the site of Praetextatus’ Catacombs <ref>127</ref>: we are dealing with a funerary chamber housing the graves of Vincentius and his wife Vibia, whose walls are painted with frescos illustrating Vibia’s journey down to the Underworld. From the first, the place of the tomb created a big problem: though its owner was undoubtly a Sabazios priest, it shares its space with a Christian cemetery, so that it seems to be a part of such a funerary complex <ref>128</ref>. One of the most diligent scholars who searched into the real nature of the monument, the Italian archaeologist Father Guarducci, engaged himself in defending at any cost the exact localization where, according to him, the tomb should have been, by arguing that, in spite of all appearances, it lay certainly outside the Christian complex <ref>129</ref>. We do not follow Guarducci in his learned and complicated analysis of the underground labyrinth of this cemetery, since we are not interested in knowing whether he is right or not <ref>130</ref>, even if it seems to us that his arguments leave much to be desired anyway <ref>131</ref>. What is really interesting, we believe, is that discussions about such a problem should have arisen, because such a fact itself demonstrates that an ambiguity historically exists.
 
Vincentius’ tomb in Rome has been studied at length by archaeologists since its discovery in 1856 in the site of Praetextatus’ Catacombs <ref>127</ref>: we are dealing with a funerary chamber housing the graves of Vincentius and his wife Vibia, whose walls are painted with frescos illustrating Vibia’s journey down to the Underworld. From the first, the place of the tomb created a big problem: though its owner was undoubtly a Sabazios priest, it shares its space with a Christian cemetery, so that it seems to be a part of such a funerary complex <ref>128</ref>. One of the most diligent scholars who searched into the real nature of the monument, the Italian archaeologist Father Guarducci, engaged himself in defending at any cost the exact localization where, according to him, the tomb should have been, by arguing that, in spite of all appearances, it lay certainly outside the Christian complex <ref>129</ref>. We do not follow Guarducci in his learned and complicated analysis of the underground labyrinth of this cemetery, since we are not interested in knowing whether he is right or not <ref>130</ref>, even if it seems to us that his arguments leave much to be desired anyway <ref>131</ref>. What is really interesting, we believe, is that discussions about such a problem should have arisen, because such a fact itself demonstrates that an ambiguity historically exists.
  
Without paying undue attention to some religious connections made in a syncretistic key by Cumont long time ago (1897) <ref>132</ref>, for which he was bitterly criticized <ref>133</ref>, we may remember here what the great scholar wrote, taking as a starting point the famous text of the Latin historian Valerius Maximus about the Jews’ expulsion from Rome by praetor Cornelius Hispalus in 139 B.C.E. (''Iudaeos, quiSabazi Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores conati erant, repetere domos suascoegit'') <ref>134</ref>: “La mention étrange du Jupiter Sabazius dans ce texte a généralement été expliquée par une confusion avec le Iahvé Zebaoth, le Dieu des armées, de la Bible. Cette confusion, fondée sur une assonance fortuite, parait certaine, mais elle n’est pas due, comme on semble le croire, à une simple erreur des Romains. Dans les ''Symposiakà problèmata ''de Plutarque, un des convives démontre doctement que le Dieu des Juives n’est autre que Dyonisos-Sabazios. Tacite connait aussi cette assimilation et croit devoir expressément la repousser. Enfin Jean Lydus, dans un passage où il résume sans doute Cornélius Labéon, nous affirme que Dyonisos, Sabazios et ''Sabaòth ''sont des synonymes” <ref>135</ref>.
+
Without paying undue attention to some religious connections made in a syncretistic key by Cumont long time ago (1897) <ref>132</ref>, for which he was bitterly criticized <ref>133</ref>, we may remember here what the great scholar wrote, taking as a starting point the famous text of the Latin historian Valerius Maximus about the Jews’ expulsion from Rome by praetor Cornelius Hispalus in 139 B.C.E. (''Iudaeos, quiSabazi Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores conati erant, repetere domos suascoegit'') <ref>134</ref>: ''La mention étrange du Jupiter Sabazius dans ce texte a généralement été expliquée par une confusion avec le Iahvé Zebaoth, le Dieu des armées, de la Bible. Cette confusion, fondée sur une assonance fortuite, parait certaine, mais elle n’est pas due, comme on semble le croire, à une simple erreur des Romains. Dans les ''Symposiakà problèmata ''de Plutarque, un des convives démontre doctement que le Dieu des Juives n’est autre que Dyonisos-Sabazios. Tacite connait aussi cette assimilation et croit devoir expressément la repousser. Enfin Jean Lydus, dans un passage où il résume sans doute Cornélius Labéon, nous affirme que Dyonisos, Sabazios et ''Sabaòth ''sont des synonymes'' <ref>135</ref>.
  
In order to give an answer to some fundamental questions about the Sabians, including the correct etymology of the name itself, assonance is in fact not less important than “real” linguistic relationships, because it counts for much what people sought to recognize in certain words, mostly when they were of foreign origin <ref>136</ref>. Also, then, a wrong etymology such as that reckoned by some classical scholar in relation to the names of two ancient Italic populations such as the ''Sabini ''and the ''Sabelli ''- the alleged root of which should be, according to them, the Greek participial form that we already know (''oi'') ''sebòmenoi ''<ref>137</ref>, and whose true roots are, on the contrary, once again Accadian ones meaning respectively “people in close proximity, in the neighbourhoods” (''sàb-in-itì'') and “people in high position, in elevated place” (''sàb- elu'') <ref>138 </ref>- is an evidence which helps the student to understand what people had at that time in their minds, even if here we only have to do with learned men or at least with people speaking Greek.
+
In order to give an answer to some fundamental questions about the Sabians, including the correct etymology of the name itself, assonance is in fact not less important than ''real'' linguistic relationships, because it counts for much what people sought to recognize in certain words, mostly when they were of foreign origin <ref>136</ref>. Also, then, a wrong etymology such as that reckoned by some classical scholar in relation to the names of two ancient Italic populations such as the ''Sabini ''and the ''Sabelli ''- the alleged root of which should be, according to them, the Greek participial form that we already know (''oi'') ''sebòmenoi ''<ref>137</ref>, and whose true roots are, on the contrary, once again Accadian ones meaning respectively ''people in close proximity, in the neighbourhoods'' (''sàb-in-itì'') and ''people in high position, in elevated place'' (''sàb- elu'') <ref>138 </ref>- is an evidence which helps the student to understand what people had at that time in their minds, even if here we only have to do with learned men or at least with people speaking Greek.
  
Let us return to Vincentius and his wife’s underground funerary chamber. We have observed that it is not impossible for a priest of Sabazios to be buried in a Christian cemetery, probably because this god was popularly seen as not so different from the Father God worshipped by Christians: in spite of what is generally admitted by scholars, for instance, we find it difficult to rule out any close relationship between the bronze votive hands (representing the god’s hand blessing his believers) <ref>139 </ref>and a well-known Christian gesture as the ''benedictio latina ''<ref>140</ref>. Indeed, though research concerning this subject has recently made great progress, there is quite a lot to investigate about Sabazios, its origins and its nature <ref>141</ref>, because even its name still keeps many secrets and shadows: for the moment, we will limit ourselves to saying that, by recognizing for the first time in the noun ''saboi ''(which recurs among the words cried out by Sabazios’ believers during the dancing processions in honour of him [''euoì saboì ues Attes''] <ref>143</ref>, according to Demosthenes’ grotesque tale) the presence of the already quoted Accadian noun ''sàbu ''(“people, population, army, servants”), a pioneer such as Semerano has opened a way which may be very far reaching <ref>142</ref>, though Chwolson had hastened to exclude this evidence, along with many other elements <ref>144</ref>.
+
Let us return to Vincentius and his wife’s underground funerary chamber. We have observed that it is not impossible for a priest of Sabazios to be buried in a Christian cemetery, probably because this god was popularly seen as not so different from the Father God worshipped by Christians: in spite of what is generally admitted by scholars, for instance, we find it difficult to rule out any close relationship between the bronze votive hands (representing the god’s hand blessing his believers) <ref>139 </ref>and a well-known Christian gesture as the ''benedictio latina ''<ref>140</ref>. Indeed, though research concerning this subject has recently made great progress, there is quite a lot to investigate about Sabazios, its origins and its nature <ref>141</ref>, because even its name still keeps many secrets and shadows: for the moment, we will limit ourselves to saying that, by recognizing for the first time in the noun ''saboi ''(which recurs among the words cried out by Sabazios’ believers during the dancing processions in honour of him [''euoì saboì ues Attes''] <ref>143</ref>, according to Demosthenes’ grotesque tale) the presence of the already quoted Accadian noun ''sàbu ''(''people, population, army, servants''), a pioneer such as Semerano has opened a way which may be very far reaching <ref>142</ref>, though Chwolson had hastened to exclude this evidence, along with many other elements <ref>144</ref>.
  
Looking at the walls of the cellar, one soon notices, among the figures which Vibia meets in her journey after-death, two singular characters who cannot but attract our attention: Mercurius <ref>145</ref>, who escorts her to Pluto’s (''Dis Pater'') transmundane court of justice, and a Good Angel (''Angelus Bonus'') <ref>146</ref>, who introduces her to seven “happy” guests (''bonorum iudicio iudicati'') taking part in a banquet <ref>147</ref>. Is it a simple coincidence to find here some traditional figures of an Hermetic environment such as Hermes/Mercurius and Agathodaimon/Angelus Bonus, which all textual sources universally point to as being the two greatest Harranian prophets? <ref>148</ref>
+
Looking at the walls of the cellar, one soon notices, among the figures which Vibia meets in her journey after-death, two singular characters who cannot but attract our attention: Mercurius <ref>145</ref>, who escorts her to Pluto’s (''Dis Pater'') transmundane court of justice, and a Good Angel (''Angelus Bonus'') <ref>146</ref>, who introduces her to seven ''happy'' guests (''bonorum iudicio iudicati'') taking part in a banquet <ref>147</ref>. Is it a simple coincidence to find here some traditional figures of an Hermetic environment such as Hermes/Mercurius and Agathodaimon/Angelus Bonus, which all textual sources universally point to as being the two greatest Harranian prophets? <ref>148</ref>
  
But, provided that our basic hypotheisis is correct, we have more. The words composing Vincentius’ epitaph again attract our attention, since they are: ''Numinisantistes Sabazis Vincentius hic est qui sacra sancta Deum mente pia coluit''. Well, if the last words have a technical sense, if, consequently, the sentence ''colere Deummente pia ''defines a special class of believers, namely people close to a Monotheistic religious view as the equivalent Greek expressions ''sèbein/sèbesthai tòn theòn ''clearly do, and if, finally, the central meaning of Arabic ''Sàbi’ùn ''is precisely “mid-Converts” <ref>149</ref>, or rather “people turning themselves towards the ''Theos Hypsistos’ ''cult”, because of the heavy, massive influence of the semantic bulk carried on by such Greek verbs and by the parallel Greek nouns (''sebòmenos/oi tòn theòn'', ''theosebès/èis'': we leave aside the corresponding Latin ones), we have found here a significant set of religious connections with Harràn and the Harrànian Sabians which, we believe, deserves further investigation.
+
But, provided that our basic hypotheisis is correct, we have more. The words composing Vincentius’ epitaph again attract our attention, since they are: ''Numinisantistes Sabazis Vincentius hic est qui sacra sancta Deum mente pia coluit''. Well, if the last words have a technical sense, if, consequently, the sentence ''colere Deummente pia ''defines a special class of believers, namely people close to a Monotheistic religious view as the equivalent Greek expressions ''sèbein/sèbesthai tòn theòn ''clearly do, and if, finally, the central meaning of Arabic ''Sàbi’ùn ''is precisely ''mid-Converts'' <ref>149</ref>, or rather ''people turning themselves towards the ''Theos Hypsistos’ ''cult'', because of the heavy, massive influence of the semantic bulk carried on by such Greek verbs and by the parallel Greek nouns (''sebòmenos/oi tòn theòn'', ''theosebès/èis'': we leave aside the corresponding Latin ones), we have found here a significant set of religious connections with Harràn and the Harrànian Sabians which, we believe, deserves further investigation.
  
 
==Tertium Genus==
 
==Tertium Genus==
  
We are now going to face a crucial point, by analysing a series of names such as Gentiles, ''Ethnoi'', ''Hèllenes'', Greeks, ''Hunafà’ ''(sing. ''Hanìf''). Suffice it to recall here that the last one – or rather the parallel noun in Syriac: ''Hanpè ''(sing.: ''Hanpà'') <ref>150 </ref>- is usually employed into Syriac-Christian literature to translate the Greek nouns ''Ethnoi'', ''Ethnikòi'', ''Hellenes'', and it is consequently assumed as an equivalent for “Pagan” <ref>151</ref>, though the same Arabic term ''Hanìf ''in Islamic usage is considered on the contrary as a close synonym for “Muslim”: in Muhammad’s mind, the name ''Hanìf ''defines in fact a sort of primary Monotheist, in particular the religious position of Abraham who “was not a Jew, nor was he a Christian, but he was a ''Hanìf'', a Muslim, and not of the Polytheists”, according to the ''Sura ''III’s famous verse <ref>152</ref>.
+
We are now going to face a crucial point, by analysing a series of names such as Gentiles, ''Ethnoi'', ''Hèllenes'', Greeks, ''Hunafà’ ''(sing. ''Hanìf''). Suffice it to recall here that the last one – or rather the parallel noun in Syriac: ''Hanpè ''(sing.: ''Hanpà'') <ref>150 </ref>- is usually employed into Syriac-Christian literature to translate the Greek nouns ''Ethnoi'', ''Ethnikòi'', ''Hellenes'', and it is consequently assumed as an equivalent for ''Pagan'' <ref>151</ref>, though the same Arabic term ''Hanìf ''in Islamic usage is considered on the contrary as a close synonym for ''Muslim'': in Muhammad’s mind, the name ''Hanìf ''defines in fact a sort of primary Monotheist, in particular the religious position of Abraham who ''was not a Jew, nor was he a Christian, but he was a ''Hanìf'', a Muslim, and not of the Polytheists'', according to the ''Sura ''III’s famous verse <ref>152</ref>.
  
 
We have to confess that we have never understood the bitter opposition to the semantic correspondence between the names ''Hanìf''/''Hunafà’ ''and ''Sàbi''/''Sàbi’ùn'', proposed long ago by Pedersen <ref>153</ref>, which scholars have generally maintained <ref>154</ref>. It is sufficient to read the titles of the Sabian Thàbit ibn Qurra’s works to realise that they can be exchanged without difficulties: it is true that, in three cases out of four, we find ''Hanpè ''and just in one ''Sàbhàyè ''<ref>155</ref>, but the fact is very probably due to the relatively recent decision to assume the name ''Sàbi’ùn ''by the Harrànian people at that time (Thàbit dies in 901 C.E.), the sole aspect of ''Fihrist''’s story about the meeting between Caliph al-Ma’mùn and Harranians in 823 C.E. <ref>156 </ref>which we find convincing and which we therefore subscribe to without reserve <ref>157</ref>.
 
We have to confess that we have never understood the bitter opposition to the semantic correspondence between the names ''Hanìf''/''Hunafà’ ''and ''Sàbi''/''Sàbi’ùn'', proposed long ago by Pedersen <ref>153</ref>, which scholars have generally maintained <ref>154</ref>. It is sufficient to read the titles of the Sabian Thàbit ibn Qurra’s works to realise that they can be exchanged without difficulties: it is true that, in three cases out of four, we find ''Hanpè ''and just in one ''Sàbhàyè ''<ref>155</ref>, but the fact is very probably due to the relatively recent decision to assume the name ''Sàbi’ùn ''by the Harrànian people at that time (Thàbit dies in 901 C.E.), the sole aspect of ''Fihrist''’s story about the meeting between Caliph al-Ma’mùn and Harranians in 823 C.E. <ref>156 </ref>which we find convincing and which we therefore subscribe to without reserve <ref>157</ref>.
  
On the other hand, throughout the passionate harangue in defence of his own and his coreligionists’ position (whose text, as in the case of the works’ titles in Syriac, was literally handed down to us by Barhaebreus’ ''Chronography''), Thàbit ibn Qurra denotes all of them – believers in a religion which, in his opinion, is the most ancient and the noblest one – by the Syriac term ''Hanpè ''once again, while for defining the religion itself he uses the abstract noun ''Hanpùtà ''<ref>158</ref>. It is not difficult to understand that he does not mean by similar expressions what we usually do by saying “Pagans” or “Gentiles” on one side, and “Paganism” or “Gentilism” on the other, though at first sight it seems that there is no lexical alternative <ref>159</ref>: the best thing would be not to translate these words at all, as Hjarpe - when rendering the whole text in French - rightly did <ref>160</ref>, but the problem still remains anyway.
+
On the other hand, throughout the passionate harangue in defence of his own and his coreligionists’ position (whose text, as in the case of the works’ titles in Syriac, was literally handed down to us by Barhaebreus’ ''Chronography''), Thàbit ibn Qurra denotes all of them – believers in a religion which, in his opinion, is the most ancient and the noblest one – by the Syriac term ''Hanpè ''once again, while for defining the religion itself he uses the abstract noun ''Hanpùtà ''<ref>158</ref>. It is not difficult to understand that he does not mean by similar expressions what we usually do by saying ''Pagans'' or ''Gentiles'' on one side, and ''Paganism'' or ''Gentilism'' on the other, though at first sight it seems that there is no lexical alternative <ref>159</ref>: the best thing would be not to translate these words at all, as Hjarpe - when rendering the whole text in French - rightly did <ref>160</ref>, but the problem still remains anyway.
  
It seems convenient to recall here an apparently odd opinion of Roger Bacon, who, in spite of his competence in Arabian-Islamic civilization, was in no doubt when qualifying Thàbit, namely the most important exponent of the Sabian-Harranian culture, as “the greatest philosopher among all ''the Christians''<ref>161</ref>; likewise, when speaking about the religious conflict that arose at a certain moment between Thàbit and his fellow-citizens, the great orientalist Gustav Flugel did not hesitate many centuries later (in his ''Dissertatio de arabicis scriptorum graecorum interpretibus,'' 1841) to state that Thàbit ''a coetu et societate ''Christianorum ''remotus et exclususest ''<ref>162</ref>.
+
It seems convenient to recall here an apparently odd opinion of Roger Bacon, who, in spite of his competence in Arabian-Islamic civilization, was in no doubt when qualifying Thàbit, namely the most important exponent of the Sabian-Harranian culture, as ''the greatest philosopher among all ''the Christians'''' <ref>161</ref>; likewise, when speaking about the religious conflict that arose at a certain moment between Thàbit and his fellow-citizens, the great orientalist Gustav Flugel did not hesitate many centuries later (in his ''Dissertatio de arabicis scriptorum graecorum interpretibus,'' 1841) to state that Thàbit ''a coetu et societate ''Christianorum ''remotus et exclususest ''<ref>162</ref>.
  
It would seem quite obvious to think that a simple mistake had been made by both scholars: but how could it happen and, above all, why? We have to do with two very learned men, and with a philosopher, a scientist, a religious leader of first magnitude: how is it possible to give such information, if it is completely wrong? Instead might it not be interesting to think that there were serious historical reasons for consciously exchanging “Sabians” with “Christians”, namely that a similar confusion had really happened because people often were not able to distinguishing from the other? <ref>163</ref>
+
It would seem quite obvious to think that a simple mistake had been made by both scholars: but how could it happen and, above all, why? We have to do with two very learned men, and with a philosopher, a scientist, a religious leader of first magnitude: how is it possible to give such information, if it is completely wrong? Instead might it not be interesting to think that there were serious historical reasons for consciously exchanging ''Sabians'' with ''Christians'', namely that a similar confusion had really happened because people often were not able to distinguishing from the other? <ref>163</ref>
  
As a matter of fact, nobody till now had been able to explain completely the ways in which the name ''Hanìf ''came to assume in the ''Qur’àn ''an opposite meaning to the parallel term in the Syriac-Christian lexicon, where it has a wholly negative connotation <ref>164</ref>. We go slightly forward nevertheless, by noting that such a semantic value is not carried by the word itself, since it has been used in that way only under certain historical conditions, namely according to a precise religious point of view. As Faris and Glidden had demonstrated once and for all, by analysing diachronically the word’s usage in different inter-linguistic and inter-cultural contexts, the basic meaning of Syriac ''Hanpà ''is “Hellenist”, “Greek”, “of Hellenistic education” <ref>165</ref>: so everything depends on the religious meaning which one gives to these expressions. They may mean “Pagan”, just as they may not: certainly, they do not include the meaning of “Pagan” if by this word one wants to define a simple “Heathen”, an uncivilized “Idolater”, a “Peasant” continuing to worship age-old idols <ref>166</ref>. That is the central point.
+
As a matter of fact, nobody till now had been able to explain completely the ways in which the name ''Hanìf ''came to assume in the ''Qur’àn ''an opposite meaning to the parallel term in the Syriac-Christian lexicon, where it has a wholly negative connotation <ref>164</ref>. We go slightly forward nevertheless, by noting that such a semantic value is not carried by the word itself, since it has been used in that way only under certain historical conditions, namely according to a precise religious point of view. As Faris and Glidden had demonstrated once and for all, by analysing diachronically the word’s usage in different inter-linguistic and inter-cultural contexts, the basic meaning of Syriac ''Hanpà ''is ''Hellenist'', ''Greek'', ''of Hellenistic education'' <ref>165</ref>: so everything depends on the religious meaning which one gives to these expressions. They may mean ''Pagan'', just as they may not: certainly, they do not include the meaning of ''Pagan'' if by this word one wants to define a simple ''Heathen'', an uncivilized ''Idolater'', a ''Peasant'' continuing to worship age-old idols <ref>166</ref>. That is the central point.
  
In our ''I Sebòmenoi'', we had suggested a puzzling connection between the Koranic verses mentioning the Sabians and the ''Apology''’s excerpt where Aristide – as well as some other Holy Fathers of the IV century - express the well-known argument of the rise of Christianity in terms of ''Tertium Genus ''<ref>167</ref>. It is worth-while remembering M. Simon’s comments on this subject: “Dès lors que l’Eglise victorieuse étend ses conquêtes jusqu’aux limites du monde civilisé et tend à se confondre avec lui, elle en revendique l’héritage; et lorsque les Pères du IVe siècle répondent aux Juifs, ils parlent non plus simplement en chrétiens, mais au nom des gens du dehors, appellés à remplacer Israel: ''Ecclesia ex gentibus''<ref>168</ref>. It is this superimposition of the Church on the Hellenic civilization which created a historical confusion difficult to clear up <ref>169</ref>. On one hand, after having won the long struggle of claiming its right of existence, Christianity receives Hellad’s inheritance, because Hellenic culture was the previous civilisation while now the civilization is the Church itself; on the other hand, the word “Hellenes” was keeping, in certain contexts such as the Syriac one already observed, its natural meaning of an ethnical group completely indifferent, if not hostile and opposed, to the Church <ref>170</ref>: it is the old Greece’s mythical world which survives in the collective imagination with its anthropomorphic deities, with its capricious gods, with its up to date fantastic figures. But such a world exists only as a landscape of the past, so that it easily disappears into the big and undifferentiated mass of barbarous polytheists.
+
In our ''I Sebòmenoi'', we had suggested a puzzling connection between the Koranic verses mentioning the Sabians and the ''Apology''’s excerpt where Aristide – as well as some other Holy Fathers of the IV century - express the well-known argument of the rise of Christianity in terms of ''Tertium Genus ''<ref>167</ref>. It is worth-while remembering M. Simon’s comments on this subject: ''Dès lors que l’Eglise victorieuse étend ses conquêtes jusqu’aux limites du monde civilisé et tend à se confondre avec lui, elle en revendique l’héritage; et lorsque les Pères du IVe siècle répondent aux Juifs, ils parlent non plus simplement en chrétiens, mais au nom des gens du dehors, appellés à remplacer Israel: ''Ecclesia ex gentibus'''' <ref>168</ref>. It is this superimposition of the Church on the Hellenic civilization which created a historical confusion difficult to clear up <ref>169</ref>. On one hand, after having won the long struggle of claiming its right of existence, Christianity receives Hellad’s inheritance, because Hellenic culture was the previous civilisation while now the civilization is the Church itself; on the other hand, the word ''Hellenes'' was keeping, in certain contexts such as the Syriac one already observed, its natural meaning of an ethnical group completely indifferent, if not hostile and opposed, to the Church <ref>170</ref>: it is the old Greece’s mythical world which survives in the collective imagination with its anthropomorphic deities, with its capricious gods, with its up to date fantastic figures. But such a world exists only as a landscape of the past, so that it easily disappears into the big and undifferentiated mass of barbarous polytheists.
  
This fact may explain why, in the Greek version of Aristide’s ''Apology'', the “Greeks” completely vanish: ''Trìa gène eisìn en tòde tò kòsmo, òn eisì oi par’ umìnlegomènon theòn proskynetaì kaì Ioudaìoi kaì Khristianoì ''<ref>171</ref>. The “Greeks”, as it were, split themselves in two parts, both having become invisible: the “good Greeks”, masters of knowledge and eternal symbols of developed civilization, have been suddenly included into the Christian community; the “bad Greeks”, the naives and fierce polytheists of the past, have on the other hand been included into the group of the unbelievers <ref>172</ref>. The situation changes in the Syriac version, where one comes nearer to Muhammad’s pattern of world religions, since one reads: “This is evident to you, king, that human races are ''four'': Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians" <ref>173</ref>. Actually, one might have found an exactly corresponding prototype of the Koranic text, if the “Greeks” had been part here – as it is the case for the Sabians in the ''Qur’àn ''– of the set of the believers (the “People of the Book”), but it is not so: the Syriac excerpt of the ''Apology ''displays a sketch-map of the historical progress of Religion, by means of the significant equation Religions-Peoples which from this date becomes very common <ref>174</ref>, but these four groups are sharply divided into two halves, the comma leaves no doubt: into the latter the Monotheists are placed, the Jews and the “Third New People”, the Christians; into the former, as a whole, Idolaters (Barbarians) and Polytheists, namely the “bad Greeks” observed above, where such a presence is a natural issue of what has been said before about the ecclesiastical negative connotation of the term ''Hanpè''.
+
This fact may explain why, in the Greek version of Aristide’s ''Apology'', the ''Greeks'' completely vanish: ''Trìa gène eisìn en tòde tò kòsmo, òn eisì oi par’ umìnlegomènon theòn proskynetaì kaì Ioudaìoi kaì Khristianoì ''<ref>171</ref>. The ''Greeks'', as it were, split themselves in two parts, both having become invisible: the ''good Greeks'', masters of knowledge and eternal symbols of developed civilization, have been suddenly included into the Christian community; the ''bad Greeks'', the naives and fierce polytheists of the past, have on the other hand been included into the group of the unbelievers <ref>172</ref>. The situation changes in the Syriac version, where one comes nearer to Muhammad’s pattern of world religions, since one reads: ''This is evident to you, king, that human races are ''four'': Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians" <ref>173</ref>. Actually, one might have found an exactly corresponding prototype of the Koranic text, if the ''Greeks'' had been part here – as it is the case for the Sabians in the ''Qur’àn ''– of the set of the believers (the ''People of the Book''), but it is not so: the Syriac excerpt of the ''Apology ''displays a sketch-map of the historical progress of Religion, by means of the significant equation Religions-Peoples which from this date becomes very common <ref>174</ref>, but these four groups are sharply divided into two halves, the comma leaves no doubt: into the latter the Monotheists are placed, the Jews and the ''Third New People'', the Christians; into the former, as a whole, Idolaters (Barbarians) and Polytheists, namely the ''bad Greeks'' observed above, where such a presence is a natural issue of what has been said before about the ecclesiastical negative connotation of the term ''Hanpè''.
  
''En passant'', a phenomenon of extreme gravity had happened: the historical removal of a so-called “third” group of “Greeks”, a huge multitude of persons whose numerical volume was, as we said, surely not smaller in Late Antiquity than that of the Judaic community or of the Christian one: the Pagan Monotheists, the God- Fearers/Worshippers <ref>175</ref>. Christian engagement in order to sweep away this uneasy religious reality goes on for centuries, since any trace of its existence must be totally erased, even if some strongholds of the opposite field continue to offer resistance to the knives. Harràn is one of the most striking examples of that: Harrànians, in fact, were normally identified with the “Greeks”, even long before the city became an active centre for the translation of Greek scientific and philosophical texts into Syriac and Arabic, for which learned work it has to be viewed, in addition to its other relevant features, as one of the most important world channels for the transmission of the Hellenic culture to the West during the Middle Ages <ref>176</ref>. In Calcedon Council’s time, the city was already known as ''Hellenopolis ''or ''Hellènon Polis'', to be understood as “City of the Pagans” indeed (as the Latin version of the same Council’s ''Acts'' explicitly states: ''Paganorum civitatis'') <ref>177</ref>, because of its strong conservative spirit in religious matters and its solid links with Greek-Hellenistic education <ref>178</ref>. Also Arabs continue to perpetuate such a portrait of the Harranians, by seeing them as the Greek civilization’s heirs or merely as the Greeks themselves: the philo-Hellenic Purity’s Brethren, for instance, declare: “…Greeks …have got by (today’s) people different names, among which Sabians (''Sàbi’ùn''), Harrànians and ''Hatùfùn ''(''Hanifùn ''?) <ref>179</ref>; while al-Bìrùnì’s ''Chronology'', one of the most extensive and interesting sources about Medieval Harràn and its Sabian inhabitants, witnesses what follows: “The Harrànians … are the remains of the followers of the ancient religion of the West, separated (cut off) from it, since the Ionian Greeks (''i.e. ''the ancient Greeks, not the ''Romaìoi ''or Byzantine Greeks) adopted Christianity” <ref>180</ref>.
+
''En passant'', a phenomenon of extreme gravity had happened: the historical removal of a so-called ''third'' group of ''Greeks'', a huge multitude of persons whose numerical volume was, as we said, surely not smaller in Late Antiquity than that of the Judaic community or of the Christian one: the Pagan Monotheists, the God- Fearers/Worshippers <ref>175</ref>. Christian engagement in order to sweep away this uneasy religious reality goes on for centuries, since any trace of its existence must be totally erased, even if some strongholds of the opposite field continue to offer resistance to the knives. Harràn is one of the most striking examples of that: Harrànians, in fact, were normally identified with the ''Greeks'', even long before the city became an active centre for the translation of Greek scientific and philosophical texts into Syriac and Arabic, for which learned work it has to be viewed, in addition to its other relevant features, as one of the most important world channels for the transmission of the Hellenic culture to the West during the Middle Ages <ref>176</ref>. In Calcedon Council’s time, the city was already known as ''Hellenopolis ''or ''Hellènon Polis'', to be understood as ''City of the Pagans'' indeed (as the Latin version of the same Council’s ''Acts'' explicitly states: ''Paganorum civitatis'') <ref>177</ref>, because of its strong conservative spirit in religious matters and its solid links with Greek-Hellenistic education <ref>178</ref>. Also Arabs continue to perpetuate such a portrait of the Harranians, by seeing them as the Greek civilization’s heirs or merely as the Greeks themselves: the philo-Hellenic Purity’s Brethren, for instance, declare: ''…Greeks …have got by (today’s) people different names, among which Sabians (''Sàbi’ùn''), Harrànians and ''Hatùfùn ''(''Hanifùn ''?) <ref>179</ref>''; while al-Bìrùnì’s ''Chronology'', one of the most extensive and interesting sources about Medieval Harràn and its Sabian inhabitants, witnesses what follows: ''The Harrànians … are the remains of the followers of the ancient religion of the West, separated (cut off) from it, since the Ionian Greeks (''i.e. ''the ancient Greeks, not the ''Romaìoi ''or Byzantine Greeks) adopted Christianity'' <ref>180</ref>.
  
Some scholars such as A. Sprenger, C.C. Torrey and C.S. Lyall connected the Arabic term ''Hanìf ''with Hebrew ''Hànef'', usually translated “heretic” or also “profane”, rather than with the Syriac ''Hanpà ''<ref>181</ref>: indeed, even in Hebrew the semantic value is somewhat ambiguous, if the common opinion according to which the same “Enoch was a ''Hànef'', sometimes righteous (''saddìq''), sometimes wicked” <ref>182 </ref>carries any weight. On the other hand, Medieval Muslim lexicographers, and also some orientalists, insisted on the Arabic origin of the name <ref>183</ref>, by seeing it as a derivation from the Arabic verb ''hanafa'', “to decline, to turn away from” and consequently assigning it the meaning of “one who turns aside or secedes from his community in the matter of religion” <ref>184</ref>; while Father Lammens on his side pointed out to the close connections among the Arabic verbs (V form) ''tahannafa, tahannata ''and ''ta’allaha ''(the last verb being - incidentally - the final expression of the saying carved upon the door of the ''majma’ ''of the Harranian Sabians still at the beginnings of the IV H./X century C.E. according to al-Ma’sùdi: we will return to that) <ref>185 </ref>in relation with “les formes diverses de l’ascétisme chez les anciens Arabes” <ref>186</ref>.
+
Some scholars such as A. Sprenger, C.C. Torrey and C.S. Lyall connected the Arabic term ''Hanìf ''with Hebrew ''Hànef'', usually translated ''heretic'' or also ''profane'', rather than with the Syriac ''Hanpà ''<ref>181</ref>: indeed, even in Hebrew the semantic value is somewhat ambiguous, if the common opinion according to which the same ''Enoch was a ''Hànef'', sometimes righteous (''saddìq''), sometimes wicked'' <ref>182 </ref>carries any weight. On the other hand, Medieval Muslim lexicographers, and also some orientalists, insisted on the Arabic origin of the name <ref>183</ref>, by seeing it as a derivation from the Arabic verb ''hanafa'', ''to decline, to turn away from'' and consequently assigning it the meaning of ''one who turns aside or secedes from his community in the matter of religion'' <ref>184</ref>; while Father Lammens on his side pointed out to the close connections among the Arabic verbs (V form) ''tahannafa, tahannata ''and ''ta’allaha ''(the last verb being - incidentally - the final expression of the saying carved upon the door of the ''majma’ ''of the Harranian Sabians still at the beginnings of the IV H./X century C.E. according to al-Ma’sùdi: we will return to that) <ref>185 </ref>in relation with ''les formes diverses de l’ascétisme chez les anciens Arabes'' <ref>186</ref>.
  
In reality, we seem to remain always in the same semantic field, with the immanent dialectics Good-Evil already observed when discussing the Hebrew root ''SHUBH'': everything depends on one’s point of view <ref>187</ref>. But ''Hanìf ''is strictly associated with the Muslim concept of ''fitra'', the “natural disposition”, and may be connected therefore with the primary constitution of mankind: “Set thy face then, ''hanìf''-fashion towards the goal (''dìn'') God hath disposed within the nature of man (or according to the constitution God hath constituted man), for no change can be effected in the creation of God” <ref>188</ref>. Leaving aside the Koranic usage of the term, we shall look briefly at the main features of those ascetics seeking God <ref>189 </ref>about whom several Arab sources provide evidence. They are not Jews nor Christians, because they are said to follow the ''millat Ibrahìm'', the “way of Abraham”, and in Abraham’s times these cults did not exist yet <ref>190</ref>. It is, however, quite strange that, when they come in contact with a Christian country and dwell there for a certain time, it is not unusual for them to convert to Christianity: three out of four ''Hunafà’ ''recorded by Ibn Ishàq in the ''Sìra ''<ref>191</ref>, became Christians, Ubayd Allàh ibn Jahsh in Abyssinia and Uthmàn ibn Huwayrith at Costantinople, only Waraqa ibn Nawfal (the cousin of Muhammad’s wife Khadìja) remaining in the region of Hijàz’; the fourth also, Zayd ibn Amr, travelled abroad, through Syria and Mesopotamia, in quest of the true religion but, unlike the others, he did not find what he was looking for: anyway, “he abandoned the worship of idols, abstained from eating that which had died of itself, and from blood, and from things sacrificed to idols, and forbade the burying alive of infants. He proclaimed that he worshipped the Lord of Abraham” <ref>192</ref>.
+
In reality, we seem to remain always in the same semantic field, with the immanent dialectics Good-Evil already observed when discussing the Hebrew root ''SHUBH'': everything depends on one’s point of view <ref>187</ref>. But ''Hanìf ''is strictly associated with the Muslim concept of ''fitra'', the ''natural disposition'', and may be connected therefore with the primary constitution of mankind: ''Set thy face then, ''hanìf''-fashion towards the goal (''dìn'') God hath disposed within the nature of man (or according to the constitution God hath constituted man), for no change can be effected in the creation of God'' <ref>188</ref>. Leaving aside the Koranic usage of the term, we shall look briefly at the main features of those ascetics seeking God <ref>189 </ref>about whom several Arab sources provide evidence. They are not Jews nor Christians, because they are said to follow the ''millat Ibrahìm'', the ''way of Abraham'', and in Abraham’s times these cults did not exist yet <ref>190</ref>. It is, however, quite strange that, when they come in contact with a Christian country and dwell there for a certain time, it is not unusual for them to convert to Christianity: three out of four ''Hunafà’ ''recorded by Ibn Ishàq in the ''Sìra ''<ref>191</ref>, became Christians, Ubayd Allàh ibn Jahsh in Abyssinia and Uthmàn ibn Huwayrith at Costantinople, only Waraqa ibn Nawfal (the cousin of Muhammad’s wife Khadìja) remaining in the region of Hijàz’; the fourth also, Zayd ibn Amr, travelled abroad, through Syria and Mesopotamia, in quest of the true religion but, unlike the others, he did not find what he was looking for: anyway, ''he abandoned the worship of idols, abstained from eating that which had died of itself, and from blood, and from things sacrificed to idols, and forbade the burying alive of infants. He proclaimed that he worshipped the Lord of Abraham'' <ref>192</ref>.
  
 
==Sabians = Adherents of the Prevailing Religion==
 
==Sabians = Adherents of the Prevailing Religion==
  
What does one learn from these stories? At least two things. The first would seem to corroborate an exceptionally fitting definition of the Sabians by al-Bìrùnì to which we shall turn at once: exceptional because it is unique for its exactness and clearness, and also because the great Persian polygraph shows that he is able to improve a definition of the “real Sabians”, given by him within his ''Chronology ''almost thirty years before, which in our previous study we found already very interesting and suggestive. Actually we have to do with two passages, that are respectively contained in chapter VIII and chapter XVIII of the book, but their remarkable similarity allows us to quote here only the first text: it is worth noting, however, that the writer felt the need to repeat twice what he had come to know on the subject, because this detail suggests that he was perfectly aware of the special importance of such an explanation of the historical rising of Sabianism. He writes: “The Sabians are the remnant of the Jewish tribes who remained in Babylonia, when the other tribes left it for Jerusalem in the days of Cyrus and Artaxerxes. Those remaining tribes felt themselves attracted to the rites of the Magians, and so they ''inclined ''(were ''inclined'', ''i.e. ''Sàbi) towards the religion of Nebukadnezar, and adopted a system mixed of Magism and Judaism like that of Samaritans in Syria” <ref>193</ref>.
+
What does one learn from these stories? At least two things. The first would seem to corroborate an exceptionally fitting definition of the Sabians by al-Bìrùnì to which we shall turn at once: exceptional because it is unique for its exactness and clearness, and also because the great Persian polygraph shows that he is able to improve a definition of the ''real Sabians'', given by him within his ''Chronology ''almost thirty years before, which in our previous study we found already very interesting and suggestive. Actually we have to do with two passages, that are respectively contained in chapter VIII and chapter XVIII of the book, but their remarkable similarity allows us to quote here only the first text: it is worth noting, however, that the writer felt the need to repeat twice what he had come to know on the subject, because this detail suggests that he was perfectly aware of the special importance of such an explanation of the historical rising of Sabianism. He writes: ''The Sabians are the remnant of the Jewish tribes who remained in Babylonia, when the other tribes left it for Jerusalem in the days of Cyrus and Artaxerxes. Those remaining tribes felt themselves attracted to the rites of the Magians, and so they ''inclined ''(were ''inclined'', ''i.e. ''Sàbi) towards the religion of Nebukadnezar, and adopted a system mixed of Magism and Judaism like that of Samaritans in Syria'' <ref>193</ref>.
  
 
Well, we perceived that a similar version of the facts suddenly opened a window on the truth: what more could one desire than this? It was the extremely plain description of the phenomenon of Proselytism in relation to the Jewish people <ref>194</ref>, of its first chronological manifestation … <ref>194 bis</ref>; or rather it was in this sense that we were tempted to interpret the excerpt: it seemed in fact to confirm on the whole our hypothesis about the equation Sabians–God-Fearers, by laying the foundation stone of the theoretical building. Though pointing to the same direction, however, the ''Chronology''’s text says literally something slightly different, but in order to understand what such a thing would be we have to look at al-Bìrùnì’s complementary definition of the Sabians which we started from, the one contained in his ''Kitàb altafhìm'', the ''Book of Initiation in the Elements of the Art of Astrology''.
 
Well, we perceived that a similar version of the facts suddenly opened a window on the truth: what more could one desire than this? It was the extremely plain description of the phenomenon of Proselytism in relation to the Jewish people <ref>194</ref>, of its first chronological manifestation … <ref>194 bis</ref>; or rather it was in this sense that we were tempted to interpret the excerpt: it seemed in fact to confirm on the whole our hypothesis about the equation Sabians–God-Fearers, by laying the foundation stone of the theoretical building. Though pointing to the same direction, however, the ''Chronology''’s text says literally something slightly different, but in order to understand what such a thing would be we have to look at al-Bìrùnì’s complementary definition of the Sabians which we started from, the one contained in his ''Kitàb altafhìm'', the ''Book of Initiation in the Elements of the Art of Astrology''.
  
Here, in the relevant section dealing with the “Horoscope of Religions” <ref>195</ref>, where the seven planets are put in correspondence with just as many universal religions, one finds the Moon - namely the lowest of the seven heavenly bodies, naturally associated with Harràn because of the Sumero-Babylonian cult of the Moon-God ''Sìn'' whose worship was still alive in this ancient city, proud of its religious traditions, during the Muslim Middle Ages <ref>196 </ref>– placed in parallel with the Sabians, just as one might have expected. But really surprising is the formula by which al-Bìrùnì delimits Sabianism, since Sabians become now the “Adherents of the Prevailing Religion” (''alladhìna bi-dìn kulli gàlibin'') <ref>197</ref>. Perfectly fitting! Impeccable! It is impossible to define in a better way the idea of what has been called, to use a infelicitous expression indeed, “mid-Conversion” <ref>198</ref>. A general but not generic formula, where among many other things one recognizes also the devotional position of the four ''Hunafà’ ''whom we have met above: to make Conversion a well-identified phenomenon, one needs not only a private spiritual feeling enlarged to massive dimensions, but also a dominant religion, namely a cult able to have a prevalent position over the others. In any case, that was how the process developed in the course of history: only when a single religion, Christianity, became the official Religion of the Roman Empire, in fact, did Conversion begin to be acknowledged as a clear, unquestionable fact, representing a social and religious reality that people could eventually conceive without difficulties and therefore express without linguistic ambiguities.
+
Here, in the relevant section dealing with the ''Horoscope of Religions'' <ref>195</ref>, where the seven planets are put in correspondence with just as many universal religions, one finds the Moon - namely the lowest of the seven heavenly bodies, naturally associated with Harràn because of the Sumero-Babylonian cult of the Moon-God ''Sìn'' whose worship was still alive in this ancient city, proud of its religious traditions, during the Muslim Middle Ages <ref>196 </ref>– placed in parallel with the Sabians, just as one might have expected. But really surprising is the formula by which al-Bìrùnì delimits Sabianism, since Sabians become now the ''Adherents of the Prevailing Religion'' (''alladhìna bi-dìn kulli gàlibin'') <ref>197</ref>. Perfectly fitting! Impeccable! It is impossible to define in a better way the idea of what has been called, to use a infelicitous expression indeed, ''mid-Conversion'' <ref>198</ref>. A general but not generic formula, where among many other things one recognizes also the devotional position of the four ''Hunafà’ ''whom we have met above: to make Conversion a well-identified phenomenon, one needs not only a private spiritual feeling enlarged to massive dimensions, but also a dominant religion, namely a cult able to have a prevalent position over the others. In any case, that was how the process developed in the course of history: only when a single religion, Christianity, became the official Religion of the Roman Empire, in fact, did Conversion begin to be acknowledged as a clear, unquestionable fact, representing a social and religious reality that people could eventually conceive without difficulties and therefore express without linguistic ambiguities.
  
 
==Hypsistarii, Sebòmenoi/Phoboùmenoi (tòn Theòn), Theosebeìs, Massaliani,Euphemitai, Caelicolae, Hunafà==
 
==Hypsistarii, Sebòmenoi/Phoboùmenoi (tòn Theòn), Theosebeìs, Massaliani,Euphemitai, Caelicolae, Hunafà==
  
“Adherents of the Prevailing Religion”: let us pay attention to the first term. “Adherents” simply means “Symphatizers” <ref>199</ref>, “Close to”, “To get ready for”, it does not mean “Full Converts”, which is exactly the case of the God-Fearers. Probably al- Bìrùnì should have added to the last words of his definition the attribute “Monotheistic”, since we always have to do with people who made the fundamental step to turn themselves to the faith in One Most-High God, in One Supreme Deity <ref>200</ref> in reference to whom the other lesser deities play often the role of heavenly messengers, of angels, as the Oracle from Oenoanda – that is from the Northern Lycian site where one of the rare ''Hypsistarii''’s cult-places has been found – explicitly states by Apollo’s mouth: “Born of itself, untaught, without a mother, unshakeable, not contained in a name, known by many names, dwelling in fire, this is God. We, his angels, are a small part of God” <ref>201</ref>. But it is true, also, that after the final victory of Christianity God-Fearers’ communities – whose names historically range from ''Hypsistarii'', ''Hypsistariani'', to ''Theosebèis'', ''Sebòmenoi tòn Theòn'', ''Caelicolae ''etc. - but also the lonely individuals seeking after God known by the name ''Hunafà’ ''in the Near Eastern desert regions felt the attraction of Christianity by often achieving their spiritual way through a full Conversion to the Cross, while in previous times they were gravitating around the prevalent Monotheistic groups settled throughout the geographical areas where they lived, which as a rule were Jewish ones.
+
''Adherents of the Prevailing Religion'': let us pay attention to the first term. ''Adherents'' simply means ''Symphatizers'' <ref>199</ref>, ''Close to'', ''To get ready for'', it does not mean ''Full Converts'', which is exactly the case of the God-Fearers. Probably al- Bìrùnì should have added to the last words of his definition the attribute ''Monotheistic'', since we always have to do with people who made the fundamental step to turn themselves to the faith in One Most-High God, in One Supreme Deity <ref>200</ref> in reference to whom the other lesser deities play often the role of heavenly messengers, of angels, as the Oracle from Oenoanda – that is from the Northern Lycian site where one of the rare ''Hypsistarii''’s cult-places has been found – explicitly states by Apollo’s mouth: ''Born of itself, untaught, without a mother, unshakeable, not contained in a name, known by many names, dwelling in fire, this is God. We, his angels, are a small part of God'' <ref>201</ref>. But it is true, also, that after the final victory of Christianity God-Fearers’ communities – whose names historically range from ''Hypsistarii'', ''Hypsistariani'', to ''Theosebèis'', ''Sebòmenoi tòn Theòn'', ''Caelicolae ''etc. - but also the lonely individuals seeking after God known by the name ''Hunafà’ ''in the Near Eastern desert regions felt the attraction of Christianity by often achieving their spiritual way through a full Conversion to the Cross, while in previous times they were gravitating around the prevalent Monotheistic groups settled throughout the geographical areas where they lived, which as a rule were Jewish ones.
  
Al-Bìrùnì’s first-quoted text also turns the reader’s thought to the Jewish context, even if the Persian writer seems to believe that the Jewish presence along the Euphrates and Tigris valley is connected to a religious reality that will come along after several centuries, namely the migration from Palestine into Southern Mesopotamia of some Hemerobaptist sects as Elkesaits and Mandaeans <ref>202</ref>. But if one interprets the information by means of al-Bìrùnì’s second excerpt, one sees rather the real influence that Zoroastrianism had on Hebraic religion, because it was precisely during the “Babylonian captivity” that some typical features of Hebraism such as the juxtaposition Good-Evil and God-Satan or concepts such as the Last Judgement and the Resurrection of the Dead came into being <ref>203</ref>. To sum up, we have supposed that al-Bìrùnì’s first text was only to be connected with such a historical phenomenon; on the other hand, it had relations with the historical rising of Jewish Proselytism, and reminded for example a well-known textual passage by Josephus mentioning the transfer of the Jews from Babylon to Asia Minor by Antiochus III at the end of the III century B.C.E. <ref>204</ref>: it was from this original bulk that many well-organized Jewish communities spread throughout Asia Minor and elsewhere, exerting a strong spiritual attraction on the surrounding Gentile milieu, as archaeological findings have proved with certainty. In Afrodisia <ref>205</ref>, in particular, Gentiles’ involvement in the local synagogue appears to have been really massive, since more than half of the people attending the cult-place were Gentiles whose status range across the entire social spectrum, from the highest civic positions and liberal professions to craftsmen and simple workers <ref>206</ref>: it is worth noting, once again, that such people were not fullconverts, but plain ''theosebeìs'', God-Fearers, whereas only three individuals are recorded in the engraved inscription mentioning the donors’ names of the beneficent institution which they contribute to as ''proselytoi ''<ref>207</ref>, namely people legally converted to Judaism <ref>208</ref>. Probably the Roman laws prohibiting circumcision and conversion to Judaism since Hadrian’s times played a significant role in such a meagre number of persons claiming explicitly that “passing of the boundary” which Juvenal so greatly feared and bitterly mocked: here, in fact, most of the no-Jews prefer to remain in the more neutral religious position of Juvenal’s ''pater metuens sabbata'', worshipping ''nubes et caeli numen ''and abstaining from ''carne suillam ''rather than that of the son who decides to make the last step and thus ''mox et praeputia ponit ''without any reserve <ref>209</ref>.
+
Al-Bìrùnì’s first-quoted text also turns the reader’s thought to the Jewish context, even if the Persian writer seems to believe that the Jewish presence along the Euphrates and Tigris valley is connected to a religious reality that will come along after several centuries, namely the migration from Palestine into Southern Mesopotamia of some Hemerobaptist sects as Elkesaits and Mandaeans <ref>202</ref>. But if one interprets the information by means of al-Bìrùnì’s second excerpt, one sees rather the real influence that Zoroastrianism had on Hebraic religion, because it was precisely during the ''Babylonian captivity'' that some typical features of Hebraism such as the juxtaposition Good-Evil and God-Satan or concepts such as the Last Judgement and the Resurrection of the Dead came into being <ref>203</ref>. To sum up, we have supposed that al-Bìrùnì’s first text was only to be connected with such a historical phenomenon; on the other hand, it had relations with the historical rising of Jewish Proselytism, and reminded for example a well-known textual passage by Josephus mentioning the transfer of the Jews from Babylon to Asia Minor by Antiochus III at the end of the III century B.C.E. <ref>204</ref>: it was from this original bulk that many well-organized Jewish communities spread throughout Asia Minor and elsewhere, exerting a strong spiritual attraction on the surrounding Gentile milieu, as archaeological findings have proved with certainty. In Afrodisia <ref>205</ref>, in particular, Gentiles’ involvement in the local synagogue appears to have been really massive, since more than half of the people attending the cult-place were Gentiles whose status range across the entire social spectrum, from the highest civic positions and liberal professions to craftsmen and simple workers <ref>206</ref>: it is worth noting, once again, that such people were not fullconverts, but plain ''theosebeìs'', God-Fearers, whereas only three individuals are recorded in the engraved inscription mentioning the donors’ names of the beneficent institution which they contribute to as ''proselytoi ''<ref>207</ref>, namely people legally converted to Judaism <ref>208</ref>. Probably the Roman laws prohibiting circumcision and conversion to Judaism since Hadrian’s times played a significant role in such a meagre number of persons claiming explicitly that ''passing of the boundary'' which Juvenal so greatly feared and bitterly mocked: here, in fact, most of the no-Jews prefer to remain in the more neutral religious position of Juvenal’s ''pater metuens sabbata'', worshipping ''nubes et caeli numen ''and abstaining from ''carne suillam ''rather than that of the son who decides to make the last step and thus ''mox et praeputia ponit ''without any reserve <ref>209</ref>.
  
Beyond such vague elements, we know very little about the God-Fearers’ cultic practices. From Oenoanda’s text one learns that sometimes their cult had solar features, because of the Oracle’s prescription to the faithful to pray in direction of the rising sun, namely facing east, gazing up at heaven and offering prayers to the allseeing Aether <ref>210</ref>. A tendency to solar Monotheism comes also out from J. Ustinova’s speculations about the Iranian background of the religious position of the ''thiasoi'', the cultic associations – called ''eispoietoì adelphoì sebòmenoi theòn hypsiston'', but also ''synodos ''of ''thiaseitai ''or ''thiasòtai ''– worshipping ''Theòs Hypsistos ''in Tanais and in several other Greek colonies on the Northern shore of the Black Sea in the first half of the II c. C.E. <ref>211</ref>, though we reject her general conclusions <ref>212</ref>. We should not dwell here on the connection established by E. Schurer more than one century ago between these groups of Monotheistic or quasi-Monotheistic believers and the ''metuentes'' attested by epigraphic and literal evidence in the Latin West <ref>213</ref>, but above all with the ''sebòmenoi ''(''tòn theòn''), the ''phoboùmenoi ''(''tòn theòn''), the ''Hellenes ''whom Saint Paul regularly meets in the course of his indefatigable mission <ref>214 </ref>in the synagogues of Asia Minor and Greece where he preaches the evangelical message (but in other meetingplaces also, mostly after Paul’s last theological break with the Jews <ref>215</ref>: “Thus I shall go to Gentiles”) <ref>216</ref>, and who consequently appear to be the original bulk of the emerging Christianity according to Luke’s ''Acts''.
+
Beyond such vague elements, we know very little about the God-Fearers’ cultic practices. From Oenoanda’s text one learns that sometimes their cult had solar features, because of the Oracle’s prescription to the faithful to pray in direction of the rising sun, namely facing east, gazing up at heaven and offering prayers to the allseeing Aether <ref>210</ref>. A tendency to solar Monotheism comes also out from J. Ustinova’s speculations about the Iranian background of the religious position of the ''thiasoi'', the cultic associations – called ''eispoietoì adelphoì sebòmenoi theòn hypsiston'', but also ''synodos ''of ''thiaseitai ''or ''thiasòtai ''– worshipping ''Theòs Hypsistos ''in Tanais and in several other Greek colonies on the Northern shore of the Black Sea in the first half of the II c. C.E. <ref>211</ref>, though we reject her general conclusions <ref>212</ref>. We should not dwell here on the connection established by E. Schurer more than one century ago between these groups of Monotheistic or quasi-Monotheistic believers and the ''metuentes'' attested by epigraphic and literal evidence in the Latin West <ref>213</ref>, but above all with the ''sebòmenoi ''(''tòn theòn''), the ''phoboùmenoi ''(''tòn theòn''), the ''Hellenes ''whom Saint Paul regularly meets in the course of his indefatigable mission <ref>214 </ref>in the synagogues of Asia Minor and Greece where he preaches the evangelical message (but in other meetingplaces also, mostly after Paul’s last theological break with the Jews <ref>215</ref>: ''Thus I shall go to Gentiles'') <ref>216</ref>, and who consequently appear to be the original bulk of the emerging Christianity according to Luke’s ''Acts''.
  
For the cultic features of the Western ''metuentes'', what we have observed in Juvenal’s satyrical verses <ref>217 </ref>is perhaps enough; in reference to God-Fearers’ practices in ''Acts ''one must rather stress the crucial decision of Jerusalem’s Council (51 C.E.) <ref>218</ref>, where the duties of such Gentile Converts to Christianity were fixed once and for all: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” <ref>219</ref>. What is that? It is just the moral-religious code which, according to rabbinical tradition, every man is obliged to follow, and in particular the stranger, the “resident alien” (''gertoshàb'', ''ger ash-sha’ar'') in the State of Israel <ref>220</ref>: the so-called “Noachite Laws” <ref>221</ref>. There exist various versions of such prescriptions <ref>222</ref>, but it is interesting to notice now that after this historical decision Christians Converts coming from Gentilism, namely uncircumcised Christians (''Ecclesia ex Gentibus'') <ref>223</ref>, God-Fearers, at least the ''sebòmenoi/phoboùmenoi ''(''tòn theòn'')/''Hellenes ''contacted by Paul and other apostles, ''Hunafà’'', at least the ''Hanìf ''Zayd whose devotional practices are the only ones to be explicitly stated in the ''Sìra ''<ref>224</ref>, Sabians, whom many traditions consider as Noah’s heirs and consequently followers of the “Noachite Laws” <ref>225</ref>, and finally Harranians, whose capital city is said to have been founded by Noah or by some of his relatives (a son or a nephew) after the Flood <ref>226</ref>, appear to share to some extent the same ethicalreligious duties.
+
For the cultic features of the Western ''metuentes'', what we have observed in Juvenal’s satyrical verses <ref>217 </ref>is perhaps enough; in reference to God-Fearers’ practices in ''Acts ''one must rather stress the crucial decision of Jerusalem’s Council (51 C.E.) <ref>218</ref>, where the duties of such Gentile Converts to Christianity were fixed once and for all: ''Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood'' <ref>219</ref>. What is that? It is just the moral-religious code which, according to rabbinical tradition, every man is obliged to follow, and in particular the stranger, the ''resident alien'' (''gertoshàb'', ''ger ash-sha’ar'') in the State of Israel <ref>220</ref>: the so-called ''Noachite Laws'' <ref>221</ref>. There exist various versions of such prescriptions <ref>222</ref>, but it is interesting to notice now that after this historical decision Christians Converts coming from Gentilism, namely uncircumcised Christians (''Ecclesia ex Gentibus'') <ref>223</ref>, God-Fearers, at least the ''sebòmenoi/phoboùmenoi ''(''tòn theòn'')/''Hellenes ''contacted by Paul and other apostles, ''Hunafà’'', at least the ''Hanìf ''Zayd whose devotional practices are the only ones to be explicitly stated in the ''Sìra ''<ref>224</ref>, Sabians, whom many traditions consider as Noah’s heirs and consequently followers of the ''Noachite Laws'' <ref>225</ref>, and finally Harranians, whose capital city is said to have been founded by Noah or by some of his relatives (a son or a nephew) after the Flood <ref>226</ref>, appear to share to some extent the same ethicalreligious duties.
  
But let us go on checking the available textual evidence about God-Fearers’ beliefs and rites. What Gregory of Nazianzus witnesses about the Cappadocian group called by him ''Hypsistarii ''is quite interesting, since he is speaking about his own father, converted to Christianity by some bishops ''en route ''to the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), thus handing down a direct and personal experience: “The Cult was a mixture of two elements, Hellenic error and adherence to the Jewish law … Its followers reject the idols and sacrifices of the former and worship fire and lamplight; they revere the ''sabbath ''and do not touch certain foods, but have nothing to do with circumcision. To the humble they are called Hypsistarians, and the ''Pantokrator ''is the only god they worship” <ref>227</ref>.
+
But let us go on checking the available textual evidence about God-Fearers’ beliefs and rites. What Gregory of Nazianzus witnesses about the Cappadocian group called by him ''Hypsistarii ''is quite interesting, since he is speaking about his own father, converted to Christianity by some bishops ''en route ''to the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), thus handing down a direct and personal experience: ''The Cult was a mixture of two elements, Hellenic error and adherence to the Jewish law … Its followers reject the idols and sacrifices of the former and worship fire and lamplight; they revere the ''sabbath ''and do not touch certain foods, but have nothing to do with circumcision. To the humble they are called Hypsistarians, and the ''Pantokrator ''is the only god they worship'' <ref>227</ref>.
  
There may be little doubt about the relations between this group of devotees of the Highest Divinity and the “enigmatic” <ref>228 </ref>community of worshippers of the god ''Sabbatistés ''mentioned in a Cilician inscription dating back to Augustus’ time and elsewhere called ''etairéa tòn Sambati[stòn ''<ref>229</ref>. The members of such a cultic association, denoting themselves by the term ''etaìroi'', surely revered the ''Sabbath'', even if they could not be native Jews nor proselytes: as Tcherikover rightly pointed out, in fact, Jews would never refer to their God as “the God of the ''Sabbath''<ref>230</ref>. We are, therefore, dealing with a Gentile environment, namely with observers of the Jewish “Seventh Day” of rest whose Hellenistic organization appears to be similar to that of the other groups of pagan believers in a Transcendental Deity.
+
There may be little doubt about the relations between this group of devotees of the Highest Divinity and the ''enigmatic'' <ref>228 </ref>community of worshippers of the god ''Sabbatistés ''mentioned in a Cilician inscription dating back to Augustus’ time and elsewhere called ''etairéa tòn Sambati[stòn ''<ref>229</ref>. The members of such a cultic association, denoting themselves by the term ''etaìroi'', surely revered the ''Sabbath'', even if they could not be native Jews nor proselytes: as Tcherikover rightly pointed out, in fact, Jews would never refer to their God as ''the God of the ''Sabbath'''' <ref>230</ref>. We are, therefore, dealing with a Gentile environment, namely with observers of the Jewish ''Seventh Day'' of rest whose Hellenistic organization appears to be similar to that of the other groups of pagan believers in a Transcendental Deity.
  
A passage from Gregory of Nyssa’s ''Contra Eunomium ''is another classical source about ''Hypsistiani'': that is the name, indeed very similar to the previous one recorded by the other Gregory, by which he denotes the members of this Monotheistic group, but without adding any relevant information except for the acknowledgement of attributes such as “the highest” and ''Pantokrator ''given to God by them and, at the same time, their rejection of a Christian attribute such as “Father” in reference to God <ref>231</ref>.
+
A passage from Gregory of Nyssa’s ''Contra Eunomium ''is another classical source about ''Hypsistiani'': that is the name, indeed very similar to the previous one recorded by the other Gregory, by which he denotes the members of this Monotheistic group, but without adding any relevant information except for the acknowledgement of attributes such as ''the highest'' and ''Pantokrator ''given to God by them and, at the same time, their rejection of a Christian attribute such as ''Father'' in reference to God <ref>231</ref>.
  
The testimony of Epiphanius about ''Messalians ''(“Those who pray”), even called ''Euphemitai ''(“Those who bless”), happens during the same period (376 C.E.) and is contained in his ''Panarion ''where the subject is discussed at length. The Cyprian bishop distinguishes between a Christian sect by this name and the “Pagan” community <ref>232</ref>, for both of which he shows very little sympathy indeed, but we are for the moment only interested to record what the famous heresiologist knows about the latter: “They are simply pagans who admit the existence of gods but worship none among them; they adore one God only, whom they call Almighty. They also construct for themselves certain houses or spacious areas, like ''fora'', which they call ''proseuchai''. Of old there were certain places of prayer among the Jews which were outside the city, and among the Samaritans, as we find as well in the ''Acts of theApostles'', where Lydia, a seller of purple goods, met those with Paul … Now these earlier Messalians, who derive themselves from pagans and who appeared on the scene before those at present who derive from the Christian religion, have themselves constructed on the one hand certain small places in certain regions which are called ''proseuchai ''or ''eukteria'', while in other locations they have built for themselves something like churches, where they gather at evening and morning with much lighting of lamps and torches and lengthy singing hymns and acclamations to God by the zealous among them, through which hymns and acclamations they fondly think to conciliate God” <ref>233</ref>.
+
The testimony of Epiphanius about ''Messalians ''(''Those who pray''), even called ''Euphemitai ''(''Those who bless''), happens during the same period (376 C.E.) and is contained in his ''Panarion ''where the subject is discussed at length. The Cyprian bishop distinguishes between a Christian sect by this name and the ''Pagan'' community <ref>232</ref>, for both of which he shows very little sympathy indeed, but we are for the moment only interested to record what the famous heresiologist knows about the latter: ''They are simply pagans who admit the existence of gods but worship none among them; they adore one God only, whom they call Almighty. They also construct for themselves certain houses or spacious areas, like ''fora'', which they call ''proseuchai''. Of old there were certain places of prayer among the Jews which were outside the city, and among the Samaritans, as we find as well in the ''Acts of theApostles'', where Lydia, a seller of purple goods, met those with Paul … Now these earlier Messalians, who derive themselves from pagans and who appeared on the scene before those at present who derive from the Christian religion, have themselves constructed on the one hand certain small places in certain regions which are called ''proseuchai ''or ''eukteria'', while in other locations they have built for themselves something like churches, where they gather at evening and morning with much lighting of lamps and torches and lengthy singing hymns and acclamations to God by the zealous among them, through which hymns and acclamations they fondly think to conciliate God'' <ref>233</ref>.
  
 
One changes geographical area with Cyril of Alexandria, whose information is worthy of attention mostly because of the name of the group that he mentions, for it recurs again under the form of ''Theosebeìs'', which we have already encountered. They live in Phoenicia and Palestina, worship ''Hypsistos Theòs ''but also other deities such as the Sun and the Moon, Earth and Heaven, and the brightest stars: just as was the case for Gregory of Nazianzus’ ''Hypsistarii'', also Cyril claims that ''Theosebeìs''’ beliefs and ritual customs are neither Jewish or Christian, but are a sort of mixture of both <ref>234</ref>.
 
One changes geographical area with Cyril of Alexandria, whose information is worthy of attention mostly because of the name of the group that he mentions, for it recurs again under the form of ''Theosebeìs'', which we have already encountered. They live in Phoenicia and Palestina, worship ''Hypsistos Theòs ''but also other deities such as the Sun and the Moon, Earth and Heaven, and the brightest stars: just as was the case for Gregory of Nazianzus’ ''Hypsistarii'', also Cyril claims that ''Theosebeìs''’ beliefs and ritual customs are neither Jewish or Christian, but are a sort of mixture of both <ref>234</ref>.
Line 171: Line 171:
 
In Northern Africa, finally, one finds a group known by the name ''Caelicolae ''in the first years of the V century, because it is mentioned in two constitutions of the ''Theodosian Code ''(408 and 409 C.E.) <ref>235</ref>: these ''Caelicolae ''- whose ''maior ''seducing many Christians into a sacrilegious second baptism also Saint Augustine is shown to have been in contact with <ref>236 </ref>- are charged with being a heretical Judaizing sect and are consequently outlawed by the emperors Honorius and Arcadius, even if it is not clear whether such legal measures were ever successful <ref>237</ref>. Yet it is specially important for our purposes that the same name is used twice in ''Beza ''Latin translation of ''Acts'': since the word is used to render the Greek term ''sebòmenoi ''<ref>238</ref>, in fact, one can assume with Schurer that their beliefs were quite similar to those of the God-Fearers already attested in Asia Minor and elsewhere <ref>239</ref>.
 
In Northern Africa, finally, one finds a group known by the name ''Caelicolae ''in the first years of the V century, because it is mentioned in two constitutions of the ''Theodosian Code ''(408 and 409 C.E.) <ref>235</ref>: these ''Caelicolae ''- whose ''maior ''seducing many Christians into a sacrilegious second baptism also Saint Augustine is shown to have been in contact with <ref>236 </ref>- are charged with being a heretical Judaizing sect and are consequently outlawed by the emperors Honorius and Arcadius, even if it is not clear whether such legal measures were ever successful <ref>237</ref>. Yet it is specially important for our purposes that the same name is used twice in ''Beza ''Latin translation of ''Acts'': since the word is used to render the Greek term ''sebòmenoi ''<ref>238</ref>, in fact, one can assume with Schurer that their beliefs were quite similar to those of the God-Fearers already attested in Asia Minor and elsewhere <ref>239</ref>.
  
From this brief chronological and geographical survey emerges a real religious frontier, which some authors have also recognized <ref>240</ref>. For the rituals, it is not possible to go beyond the evidence, so that one must limit oneself to say that, even when organized communities are concerned, God-Fearers’ religious prescriptions were absolutely not rigid ones and thus can be viewed as a rule within the loose horizon included by the “Noachite Laws” <ref>241</ref>. There was probably sometimes a solar aspect in the cult, the weight of which it is not possible to determine precisely in the different communities, and which might also be totally absent. All this explains why - we believe - several Muslim interpreters of the Middle Ages explicitly claim that the Sabians are “a religious group which has no cult, scripture and prophet, admitting only the ''tawhìd'', the profession of faith: ‘There is no god but God’ (''Là Allah ill’Allah'')<ref>242</ref>: a religion which has no cult looks like a paradox, but after what we have learnt about God-Fearers it ceases to appear as such. In the meantime, this evidence – among many other findings - proves that the Mandaean hypothesis about Koranic Sabians is on the wrong road and should consequently be given up.
+
From this brief chronological and geographical survey emerges a real religious frontier, which some authors have also recognized <ref>240</ref>. For the rituals, it is not possible to go beyond the evidence, so that one must limit oneself to say that, even when organized communities are concerned, God-Fearers’ religious prescriptions were absolutely not rigid ones and thus can be viewed as a rule within the loose horizon included by the ''Noachite Laws'' <ref>241</ref>. There was probably sometimes a solar aspect in the cult, the weight of which it is not possible to determine precisely in the different communities, and which might also be totally absent. All this explains why - we believe - several Muslim interpreters of the Middle Ages explicitly claim that the Sabians are ''a religious group which has no cult, scripture and prophet, admitting only the ''tawhìd'', the profession of faith: ‘There is no god but God’ (''Là Allah ill’Allah'')'' <ref>242</ref>: a religion which has no cult looks like a paradox, but after what we have learnt about God-Fearers it ceases to appear as such. In the meantime, this evidence – among many other findings - proves that the Mandaean hypothesis about Koranic Sabians is on the wrong road and should consequently be given up.
  
 
==The Sabians According to First Islamic Sources==
 
==The Sabians According to First Islamic Sources==
  
During the first two centuries of the Islamic Era, Near Eastern authors do not distinguish between “real” and “false” Sabians: this distinction, in fact, came to the light only in the first half of the III H./IX C.E. c., namely after the Harranians assumed the name “Sabians” to define their religious position in relation to the Baghdad Caliphate, during a period when the inter-religious dialogue was quite intense <ref>243</ref>. These scholars seem the better source, therefore, for understanding or at least for coming as near as possible to the very nature of the Sabians mentioned by Muhammad in the ''Qur’àn ''<ref>244</ref>: actually one wonders at these interpreters’ honesty of mind, because they generally appear not to fear being too close to the text and adding very poor information to what it literally express. As far as the three Koranic passages recording the ''Sàbi’ùn ''are concerned, the Holy Text shows the following chains of (universal) religions: Believers (Those who believe, Muslims), the Jews, the Christians, the Sabians (''Sura ''II, 62); Believers, the Jews, the Sabians, the Christians (''Sura ''V, 69); Believers, Those who are the Jews, the Sabians, the Christians, the Magians, Unbelievers (Those who set up gods [with God], Pagans of old) (''Sura'' XXII, 17).
+
During the first two centuries of the Islamic Era, Near Eastern authors do not distinguish between ''real'' and ''false'' Sabians: this distinction, in fact, came to the light only in the first half of the III H./IX C.E. c., namely after the Harranians assumed the name ''Sabians'' to define their religious position in relation to the Baghdad Caliphate, during a period when the inter-religious dialogue was quite intense <ref>243</ref>. These scholars seem the better source, therefore, for understanding or at least for coming as near as possible to the very nature of the Sabians mentioned by Muhammad in the ''Qur’àn ''<ref>244</ref>: actually one wonders at these interpreters’ honesty of mind, because they generally appear not to fear being too close to the text and adding very poor information to what it literally express. As far as the three Koranic passages recording the ''Sàbi’ùn ''are concerned, the Holy Text shows the following chains of (universal) religions: Believers (Those who believe, Muslims), the Jews, the Christians, the Sabians (''Sura ''II, 62); Believers, the Jews, the Sabians, the Christians (''Sura ''V, 69); Believers, Those who are the Jews, the Sabians, the Christians, the Magians, Unbelievers (Those who set up gods [with God], Pagans of old) (''Sura'' XXII, 17).
  
Well, with great coherence all these sources state that the Sabians are a religious group ''between ''the Jews and the Christians, or ''between ''the Jews and the Magians, or that they are a Christian sect, or, finally, that they are a separate religion: it is easy to see, therefore, that here the distance from what the text literally says is very limited, or even nonexistent. It is important to remember, besides, the name that defines here the Christians, ''i.e. al-Nasàra'': since it is true that ''al-Nasàra ''is the term usually employed in the Muslim World from the beginnings to name the Christians <ref>245</ref>, but we know that it was not just the only one in use in Muhammad’s times. It is enough to quote the term ''ràhib ''(pl. ''ruhàb''), “monk”, “ascetic” <ref>246</ref>, but also “philosopher” <ref>247</ref>, by which Christians were often identified by Arabs and by other people dwelling in Near Eastern desert regions or in the surrounding geographical areas <ref>248</ref>; or to remember a famous religious community such as ''al-Ibàd'', “The Worshippers”, “The Servants (of God), ''i.e. ''the Nestorian Christians living in al-Hìra <ref>249</ref>, in Southern Mesopotamia.
+
Well, with great coherence all these sources state that the Sabians are a religious group ''between ''the Jews and the Christians, or ''between ''the Jews and the Magians, or that they are a Christian sect, or, finally, that they are a separate religion: it is easy to see, therefore, that here the distance from what the text literally says is very limited, or even nonexistent. It is important to remember, besides, the name that defines here the Christians, ''i.e. al-Nasàra'': since it is true that ''al-Nasàra ''is the term usually employed in the Muslim World from the beginnings to name the Christians <ref>245</ref>, but we know that it was not just the only one in use in Muhammad’s times. It is enough to quote the term ''ràhib ''(pl. ''ruhàb''), ''monk'', ''ascetic'' <ref>246</ref>, but also ''philosopher'' <ref>247</ref>, by which Christians were often identified by Arabs and by other people dwelling in Near Eastern desert regions or in the surrounding geographical areas <ref>248</ref>; or to remember a famous religious community such as ''al-Ibàd'', ''The Worshippers'', ''The Servants (of God)'', ''i.e. ''the Nestorian Christians living in al-Hìra <ref>249</ref>, in Southern Mesopotamia.
  
 
Regarding the Sabians’ beliefs and rites, the following evidence comes out from these sources: 1) They believe in only One God <ref>250</ref>; 2) They do not have any cult, scripture or prophet <ref>251</ref>; 3) They state they are followers of the prophet Noah <ref>252</ref>; 4) They pray to the Sun <ref>253</ref>; 5) They pray in the direction of the ''qiblah ''<ref>254</ref>; 6) They worship the angels and read the psalms (''zabùr'') <ref>255</ref>; 7) They believe in the prophets <ref>256</ref>; 8) They have 5 daily ritual prayers <ref>257</ref>; 9) They fast 30 days a year <ref>258</ref>.
 
Regarding the Sabians’ beliefs and rites, the following evidence comes out from these sources: 1) They believe in only One God <ref>250</ref>; 2) They do not have any cult, scripture or prophet <ref>251</ref>; 3) They state they are followers of the prophet Noah <ref>252</ref>; 4) They pray to the Sun <ref>253</ref>; 5) They pray in the direction of the ''qiblah ''<ref>254</ref>; 6) They worship the angels and read the psalms (''zabùr'') <ref>255</ref>; 7) They believe in the prophets <ref>256</ref>; 8) They have 5 daily ritual prayers <ref>257</ref>; 9) They fast 30 days a year <ref>258</ref>.
  
It is clear that there are some contradictions among these statements; it is evident, in other words, that some of these scholars have in mind a certain religious community, a precise one, probably even the Mandaeans or another Baptismal sect, since some of them lived – as they still do nowadays – in the South of Iraq <ref>259</ref>. But the problem is not to determine whether the Mandaeans may be included among the Sabians and may consequently be part of the “People of the Book” <ref>260</ref>; the problem is whether these features fit with their religion or not. Now, we think that a statement such as the second one, namely that “they do not have any cult, scripture or prophet”, or that “they do not have a certain canonical law”, or even that “they have no distinctive religion” is a very singular feature. Actually, with the final summary of the beliefs and the rites of the Sabians made by S. Gunduz, the last and resolute exponent of the “Mandaean party”<ref>261</ref>, one cannot appreciate thoroughly the real weight that the above cited definitions have according to these scholars, while they recur very frequently and are particularly stressed by many of them <ref>262</ref>.
+
It is clear that there are some contradictions among these statements; it is evident, in other words, that some of these scholars have in mind a certain religious community, a precise one, probably even the Mandaeans or another Baptismal sect, since some of them lived – as they still do nowadays – in the South of Iraq <ref>259</ref>. But the problem is not to determine whether the Mandaeans may be included among the Sabians and may consequently be part of the ''People of the Book'' <ref>260</ref>; the problem is whether these features fit with their religion or not. Now, we think that a statement such as the second one, namely that ''they do not have any cult, scripture or prophet'', or that ''they do not have a certain canonical law'', or even that ''they have no distinctive religion'' is a very singular feature. Actually, with the final summary of the beliefs and the rites of the Sabians made by S. Gunduz, the last and resolute exponent of the ''Mandaean party''<ref>261</ref>, one cannot appreciate thoroughly the real weight that the above cited definitions have according to these scholars, while they recur very frequently and are particularly stressed by many of them <ref>262</ref>.
  
But which religion does not have any cult? Well, we believe that such a singular feature can only be applied to a loose group of believers such as the God-Fearers: moreover, their religious position perfectly fits with many other elements of the evidence collected above, and in particular with the statements: 1) because the faith in One (Most-High) God is the most characteristic God-Fearers’ religious feature; 3) because of their links with Noah which we have observed when discussing the “Noachite Laws”; 4) because of the cult’s solar aspects which we have sometimes noted among God-Fearers’ ritual practices; 5) for the same reason, since the Arabic term ''qiblah ''defines in general the cosmic centre, not - as Gunduz seems to believe – “the South”, and consequently it may refer to the different positions of the Sun in the sky during the 24 hours cycle (thus including also the North) <ref>262 bis</ref>, in which direction the faithful probably addressed his prayers to; 6) because of the cult of the angels which, again, we have recognized as being particularly present among the God- Fearers (we leave aside for the moment the problem of ''zabùr''). We have no elements that help us to decide whether the final three points of our list are congruent with the God-Fearers’ faith: it is worth noting, anyway, that point 8) may be a natural issue of the cult’s solar aspects already mentioned, whereas point 7) may be seen as a consequence of the Biblical tradition, certainly well-known by many of these communities’ members <ref>263</ref>; point 9), finally, is reckoned by just one scholar, ‘Abù al- Zanàd, the same person who records that “they believe in the prophets” and that “they have 5 ritual prayers daily” with Ziyàd ibn-Abìhì (and, just for the last statement, with Qatàdah).
+
But which religion does not have any cult? Well, we believe that such a singular feature can only be applied to a loose group of believers such as the God-Fearers: moreover, their religious position perfectly fits with many other elements of the evidence collected above, and in particular with the statements: 1) because the faith in One (Most-High) God is the most characteristic God-Fearers’ religious feature; 3) because of their links with Noah which we have observed when discussing the ''Noachite Laws''; 4) because of the cult’s solar aspects which we have sometimes noted among God-Fearers’ ritual practices; 5) for the same reason, since the Arabic term ''qiblah ''defines in general the cosmic centre, not - as Gunduz seems to believe – ''the South'', and consequently it may refer to the different positions of the Sun in the sky during the 24 hours cycle (thus including also the North) <ref>262 bis</ref>, in which direction the faithful probably addressed his prayers to; 6) because of the cult of the angels which, again, we have recognized as being particularly present among the God- Fearers (we leave aside for the moment the problem of ''zabùr''). We have no elements that help us to decide whether the final three points of our list are congruent with the God-Fearers’ faith: it is worth noting, anyway, that point 8) may be a natural issue of the cult’s solar aspects already mentioned, whereas point 7) may be seen as a consequence of the Biblical tradition, certainly well-known by many of these communities’ members <ref>263</ref>; point 9), finally, is reckoned by just one scholar, ‘Abù al- Zanàd, the same person who records that ''they believe in the prophets'' and that ''they have 5 ritual prayers daily'' with Ziyàd ibn-Abìhì (and, just for the last statement, with Qatàdah).
  
 
==The First Latin Translation of the Koran: Sabians = Christians?==
 
==The First Latin Translation of the Koran: Sabians = Christians?==
Line 189: Line 189:
 
We think it important to recall here the first authoritative Latin version of the Koran made in Spain by Robert of Ketton and Hermann of Carinzia’s staff of translators according to Peter the Venerable’s will, in the year 1143 C.E. <ref>264</ref>. The expressions chosen by those scholars chose to translate the name Sabians in the three Koranic passages in question are in fact very instructive for our purposes. Let us read, then, the Latin text: ''Sciendum autem generaliter, quoniam omnis recte vivens, Iudeus seuChristianus, seu ''lege sua relicta in aliam tendens, ''omnis scilicet Deum adorans,bonique gestor, indubitanter divinum amorem assequetur ''(II, 62) <ref>265</ref>; ''Credentes atqueIudaei, et ''angelos loco Dei adorantes, qui scilicet legem pro lege variant, ''Christianietiam, omnes hi inquam si in Deum crediderint, et iudici diem expectantesbenefecerint, nihil timeant ''(V, 69) <ref>266</ref>; ''Iam tibi coelitus missa re manifesta, quos vultin viam rectam Deus diriget: qui super omnia potens, illa die credentium etIudaeorum, ac ''leges variantium Christianorum, ''item et gentilium ac incredulorumiudex atque discussor inter erit ''(XXII, 17) <ref>267</ref>.
 
We think it important to recall here the first authoritative Latin version of the Koran made in Spain by Robert of Ketton and Hermann of Carinzia’s staff of translators according to Peter the Venerable’s will, in the year 1143 C.E. <ref>264</ref>. The expressions chosen by those scholars chose to translate the name Sabians in the three Koranic passages in question are in fact very instructive for our purposes. Let us read, then, the Latin text: ''Sciendum autem generaliter, quoniam omnis recte vivens, Iudeus seuChristianus, seu ''lege sua relicta in aliam tendens, ''omnis scilicet Deum adorans,bonique gestor, indubitanter divinum amorem assequetur ''(II, 62) <ref>265</ref>; ''Credentes atqueIudaei, et ''angelos loco Dei adorantes, qui scilicet legem pro lege variant, ''Christianietiam, omnes hi inquam si in Deum crediderint, et iudici diem expectantesbenefecerint, nihil timeant ''(V, 69) <ref>266</ref>; ''Iam tibi coelitus missa re manifesta, quos vultin viam rectam Deus diriget: qui super omnia potens, illa die credentium etIudaeorum, ac ''leges variantium Christianorum, ''item et gentilium ac incredulorumiudex atque discussor inter erit ''(XXII, 17) <ref>267</ref>.
  
We must not forget that we have to do with a learned translation, which should virtually gather the best sources of information about the Koranic text <ref>268</ref>; besides, one can observe that in XII century Spain Islamic civilisation had been deeply rooted for hundreds of years, and it was therefore the best cultural milieu to carry on such a work. On the other hand, as everybody knows, Spain was the main cultural channel through which most of the old Greek works (but Persian, Indian etc. ones also), lost in the West many centuries earlier, were translated indirectly from a “second hand” Arabic version into a Latin one, so that they eventually became available to an European public. Anyway, scholars generally acknowledge that Robert and Hermann have accomplished good work, because the translation <ref>269 </ref>is quite literal: it is not by chance, for example, that also the first Italian translation of the ''Koran ''(1547) is based upon such an original Latin version <ref>270</ref>.
+
We must not forget that we have to do with a learned translation, which should virtually gather the best sources of information about the Koranic text <ref>268</ref>; besides, one can observe that in XII century Spain Islamic civilisation had been deeply rooted for hundreds of years, and it was therefore the best cultural milieu to carry on such a work. On the other hand, as everybody knows, Spain was the main cultural channel through which most of the old Greek works (but Persian, Indian etc. ones also), lost in the West many centuries earlier, were translated indirectly from a ''second hand'' Arabic version into a Latin one, so that they eventually became available to an European public. Anyway, scholars generally acknowledge that Robert and Hermann have accomplished good work, because the translation <ref>269 </ref>is quite literal: it is not by chance, for example, that also the first Italian translation of the ''Koran ''(1547) is based upon such an original Latin version <ref>270</ref>.
  
But let us begin with the “Sabian” passage of the ''Sura ''II: it is not difficult to recognize the equation Sabians = God-Fearers, if it is true that the latter are really not full Converts, but just people who have abandoned (at least in part) their previous beliefs and are seeking after (the Latin participial form ''tendens ''is here perfectly fitting) another religion, not without having done in the meantime the fundamental spiritual step of believing in only One Deity, the Most-High God. The background of this information is, likewise, easy to identify: it is one of the most significant semantic values of the Arabic verbs ''saba’a ''and ''sabà ''that al-Tabarì and many other interpreters took in order to explain the name ''Sàbi''. The word means “someone who takes on a new religion other than his own”, the great Koranic commentator states, adding that the term is an equivalent of the noun ''murtadd'', “renegate”, “apostate” <ref>271</ref>.
+
But let us begin with the ''Sabian'' passage of the ''Sura ''II: it is not difficult to recognize the equation Sabians = God-Fearers, if it is true that the latter are really not full Converts, but just people who have abandoned (at least in part) their previous beliefs and are seeking after (the Latin participial form ''tendens ''is here perfectly fitting) another religion, not without having done in the meantime the fundamental spiritual step of believing in only One Deity, the Most-High God. The background of this information is, likewise, easy to identify: it is one of the most significant semantic values of the Arabic verbs ''saba’a ''and ''sabà ''that al-Tabarì and many other interpreters took in order to explain the name ''Sàbi''. The word means ''someone who takes on a new religion other than his own'', the great Koranic commentator states, adding that the term is an equivalent of the noun ''murtadd'', ''renegate'', ''apostate'' <ref>271</ref>.
  
In the “Sabian” passage of the Sura V it is perhaps possible to recognize two different keys of interpretation: the expression ''qui scilicet lege pro lege variant'', “who in other words change the Law into (for) another one”, looks like a detail suggesting – just as the reading of the ''zabùr'', the David’s ''Psalms ''which we have met above among the Sabian features <ref>272 </ref>– a Christian milieu rather than a Sabian one; but we shall soon see that such a distinction probably was not always made by external observers, so that one could often exchange one for the other. On the other hand, the sentence ''angelos loco Dei adorantes ''is quite strange here, because it seems to be evident that the group in question belongs to the wider category of the Believers, the Monotheists: so what reason is there to suspect the act of “worshipping angels instead of God”? We have noticed that angels’ worship is an important feature in the cult of ''Theos Hypsistos ''by the God-Fearers, mostly in Asia Minor where a lot of inscriptions mentioning angels have been found <ref>273</ref>. Angels play an important role in Jewish religious culture <ref>274</ref>, but at least in this region they appear to be a common feature of Jews, Christians and God-Fearers: Saint Paul in fact reproached the Colossians for their custom of worshipping angels, but we must acknowledge that similar admonitions were made in vain, if Theodoret’s commentary on that text does not fail to show that their cult was still alive in Phrigia and Pisidia four centuries later <ref>275</ref>. Then, do we have to do with God-Fearers or with (heterodox) Christians here?
+
In the ''Sabian'' passage of the Sura V it is perhaps possible to recognize two different keys of interpretation: the expression ''qui scilicet lege pro lege variant'', ''who in other words change the Law into (for) another one'', looks like a detail suggesting – just as the reading of the ''zabùr'', the David’s ''Psalms ''which we have met above among the Sabian features <ref>272 </ref>– a Christian milieu rather than a Sabian one; but we shall soon see that such a distinction probably was not always made by external observers, so that one could often exchange one for the other. On the other hand, the sentence ''angelos loco Dei adorantes ''is quite strange here, because it seems to be evident that the group in question belongs to the wider category of the Believers, the Monotheists: so what reason is there to suspect the act of ''worshipping angels instead of God''? We have noticed that angels’ worship is an important feature in the cult of ''Theos Hypsistos ''by the God-Fearers, mostly in Asia Minor where a lot of inscriptions mentioning angels have been found <ref>273</ref>. Angels play an important role in Jewish religious culture <ref>274</ref>, but at least in this region they appear to be a common feature of Jews, Christians and God-Fearers: Saint Paul in fact reproached the Colossians for their custom of worshipping angels, but we must acknowledge that similar admonitions were made in vain, if Theodoret’s commentary on that text does not fail to show that their cult was still alive in Phrigia and Pisidia four centuries later <ref>275</ref>. Then, do we have to do with God-Fearers or with (heterodox) Christians here?
  
The “Sabian” passage in the ''Sura ''XXII is the most puzzling one: here, in fact, the lack of a comma between ''leges variantium ''and ''Christianorum ''obliges the reader to understand the expression as a whole <ref>276</ref>; actually, it seems reasonable to look at the Christians in terms of the historical “people” who really changed the (Old Testament) Law <ref>277</ref>, even if at this point the group of the Sabians/God-Fearers ceases completely to appear. Perhaps it is not useless, therefore, to insist upon the historical role played by the God-Fearers during the crucial period of the rising of Christianity, at least according to the ''Acts''’ version of the facts and to Luke’s witness about the sympathy that the ''phoboùmenoi/sebòmenoi ''(''tòn theòn'') felt while listening to the evangelical message, often converting themselves to Christianity <ref>278</ref>.
+
The ''Sabian'' passage in the ''Sura ''XXII is the most puzzling one: here, in fact, the lack of a comma between ''leges variantium ''and ''Christianorum ''obliges the reader to understand the expression as a whole <ref>276</ref>; actually, it seems reasonable to look at the Christians in terms of the historical ''people'' who really changed the (Old Testament) Law <ref>277</ref>, even if at this point the group of the Sabians/God-Fearers ceases completely to appear. Perhaps it is not useless, therefore, to insist upon the historical role played by the God-Fearers during the crucial period of the rising of Christianity, at least according to the ''Acts''’ version of the facts and to Luke’s witness about the sympathy that the ''phoboùmenoi/sebòmenoi ''(''tòn theòn'') felt while listening to the evangelical message, often converting themselves to Christianity <ref>278</ref>.
  
The historical closeness between the two religious groups also emerges with particular relevance from the evidence collected in S. Pines’ 1968 important article “The Iranian Name for Christians and God-Fearers”. Given the special interest of the subject for our area of research, we quote it at length: “In Pahlavi, Sogdian and New Persian, the meaning of one of the most common designations for Christians is ‘fearers’ (''tarsàkàn''), whereas in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syriac, similar words, with identical meaning (often, but not always, coupled with God’s name), denote the ‘God-Fearers’ (or ''Yir’è shamayim''), viz., Gentiles who, in the period before or immediately after the beginning of the Christian Era, believed in the God of the Jews and observed some of their precepts … In all probability, the designation ''tarsàk ''is … a vestige that testify to the fact that, in countries in which Aramaic or an Iranian language was spoken, on the borders of the Persian Empire or within it, the Christians, during a certain historical period, were identified with the ‘God-Fearers’, in the technical sense of the term … The designation of the Christians by the name ''tarsakàn ''is, consequently, further proof of the strong connections which existed in the Iranian regions (and in the eastern border-lands of the Roman Empire) between primitive Christianity and the circles of the ''sebòmenoi''<ref>279</ref>.
+
The historical closeness between the two religious groups also emerges with particular relevance from the evidence collected in S. Pines’ 1968 important article ''The Iranian Name for Christians and God-Fearers''. Given the special interest of the subject for our area of research, we quote it at length: ''In Pahlavi, Sogdian and New Persian, the meaning of one of the most common designations for Christians is ‘fearers’ (''tarsàkàn''), whereas in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syriac, similar words, with identical meaning (often, but not always, coupled with God’s name), denote the ‘God-Fearers’ (or ''Yir’è shamayim''), viz., Gentiles who, in the period before or immediately after the beginning of the Christian Era, believed in the God of the Jews and observed some of their precepts … In all probability, the designation ''tarsàk ''is … a vestige that testify to the fact that, in countries in which Aramaic or an Iranian language was spoken, on the borders of the Persian Empire or within it, the Christians, during a certain historical period, were identified with the ‘God-Fearers’, in the technical sense of the term … The designation of the Christians by the name ''tarsakàn ''is, consequently, further proof of the strong connections which existed in the Iranian regions (and in the eastern border-lands of the Roman Empire) between primitive Christianity and the circles of the ''sebòmenoi'''' <ref>279</ref>.
  
Pines’ study is especially important for two reasons: in fact it corroborates our hypothesis about the presence of God-Fearers along the borders of the Arabian peninsula or in the neighbouring regions in the historical period which we are dealing with, and it also supposes – as we do – that a confusion between God-Fearers and Christians could sometimes have appeared. Such a confusion was probably due to some similarities in cult practices between both religious groups, as we have already observed, so that in certain geographical areas and during a certain historical period both communities were perhaps called with an identical name by external observers <ref>280</ref>. If such is the case, passages in the ''Koran ''about the ''Sàbi’ùn ''could be interesting historical testimonies of bilingualism, such as that one showed by the famous Middle- Persian Inscription from ''Kartìr'': here, the simultaneous quotation, among other religious groups, of ''nàcarày ''and ''kristiyàn'', is explained by M.L. Chaumont, who published and translated the document, in the following way: “Les mots ''nàcarày ''et ''kristiyàn ''se rapporteraient l’une l’autre aux chrétiens orthodoxes sans aucune acception d’hérésie. Leur jusxtaposition serait l’effet d’un bilinguisme qui s’était instauré depuis peu au sein de la chrétienté perse … Il est très frappant que dans les ''Acta ''de Siméon bar Sabba’è les termes ''kristiyanà ''et ''nasorayè ''sont employés comme synonymes. Avec l’inscription de Kartìr, nous sommes peut-être à l’origine de ce double emploi. Le rédacteur du document, s’il connaissait l’un et l’autre vocable, ne savait sans doute pas qu’ils pouvaient s’appliquer à la même religion” <ref>281</ref>.
+
Pines’ study is especially important for two reasons: in fact it corroborates our hypothesis about the presence of God-Fearers along the borders of the Arabian peninsula or in the neighbouring regions in the historical period which we are dealing with, and it also supposes – as we do – that a confusion between God-Fearers and Christians could sometimes have appeared. Such a confusion was probably due to some similarities in cult practices between both religious groups, as we have already observed, so that in certain geographical areas and during a certain historical period both communities were perhaps called with an identical name by external observers <ref>280</ref>. If such is the case, passages in the ''Koran ''about the ''Sàbi’ùn ''could be interesting historical testimonies of bilingualism, such as that one showed by the famous Middle- Persian Inscription from ''Kartìr'': here, the simultaneous quotation, among other religious groups, of ''nàcarày ''and ''kristiyàn'', is explained by M.L. Chaumont, who published and translated the document, in the following way: ''Les mots ''nàcarày ''et ''kristiyàn ''se rapporteraient l’une l’autre aux chrétiens orthodoxes sans aucune acception d’hérésie. Leur jusxtaposition serait l’effet d’un bilinguisme qui s’était instauré depuis peu au sein de la chrétienté perse … Il est très frappant que dans les ''Acta ''de Siméon bar Sabba’è les termes ''kristiyanà ''et ''nasorayè ''sont employés comme synonymes. Avec l’inscription de Kartìr, nous sommes peut-être à l’origine de ce double emploi. Le rédacteur du document, s’il connaissait l’un et l’autre vocable, ne savait sans doute pas qu’ils pouvaient s’appliquer à la même religion'' <ref>281</ref>.
  
A third testimony which we wish to discuss here comes from one of the ''Hadìth'' texts concerning the Arabic root ''SB’'', with the meaning “changing one’s religion for another”, “to apostatize”, which we already know as a whole. The excerpt comes from to chapter LVIII of al-Bukhàrì’s ''Sahìh'', consecrated to ''al-jiziya wa al-mwàda’ama’a àhl al-dhimma wa al-harb'', namely to the rules which Muslims had to keep when coming in contact with other populations <ref>282</ref>: in these cases, the problem was whether to consider these persons as being part of “the People of the Book”, the Monotheistic communities enjoying the right of tolerance (Jews, Christians, Magians and Sabians), in exchange for the payment of a special tax, the ''jiziya'', foreseen in these cases by Islamic law. The title of the paragraph which we are dealing with is “About the case when the enemies, after having been won, say: ‘We (want to) become Sabians (''sabà’na'', ''sabà’na'')’, without having been able to say correctly ‘We (want to) become Muslims (''aslamna'', ''aslamna'')’” <ref>283</ref>, and it narrates a quite strange story, indeed. While Khàlid in such a situation did not hesitate to slaughter everybody, being criticized afterwards by the Prophet who kept a distance from his fierce behaviour, ‘Umar on his side claimed that, when some enemy cried out the (Persian) word ''Matras''! <ref>284 </ref>(“Do not fear!), he had to be saved.
+
A third testimony which we wish to discuss here comes from one of the ''Hadìth'' texts concerning the Arabic root ''SB’'', with the meaning ''changing one’s religion for another'', ''to apostatize'', which we already know as a whole. The excerpt comes from to chapter LVIII of al-Bukhàrì’s ''Sahìh'', consecrated to ''al-jiziya wa al-mwàda’ama’a àhl al-dhimma wa al-harb'', namely to the rules which Muslims had to keep when coming in contact with other populations <ref>282</ref>: in these cases, the problem was whether to consider these persons as being part of ''the People of the Book'', the Monotheistic communities enjoying the right of tolerance (Jews, Christians, Magians and Sabians), in exchange for the payment of a special tax, the ''jiziya'', foreseen in these cases by Islamic law. The title of the paragraph which we are dealing with is ''About the case when the enemies, after having been won, say: ‘We (want to) become Sabians (''sabà’na'', ''sabà’na'')’, without having been able to say correctly ‘We (want to) become Muslims (''aslamna'', ''aslamna'')’'' <ref>283</ref>, and it narrates a quite strange story, indeed. While Khàlid in such a situation did not hesitate to slaughter everybody, being criticized afterwards by the Prophet who kept a distance from his fierce behaviour, ‘Umar on his side claimed that, when some enemy cried out the (Persian) word ''Matras''! <ref>284 </ref>(''Do not fear!''), he had to be saved.
  
What is the meaning of this episode? Actually it is not easy to interpret. As often happens when one tries to deepen the meaning of the textual evidence about the Sabians <ref>285</ref>, the sense of the document is not completely clear in this case either. At first sight it would seem that the word ''matras ''is a sort of password, providing the external boundaries of the concrete religious goal which the people here at stake are pointing to. After what we have learnt about the Persian name for Christians – ''Tarsakàn ''- from Pines’ study, in fact, we can be reasonably sure that the individuals in question by pronouncing such a word would roughly intend to embrace the idea of “religious fear”.
+
What is the meaning of this episode? Actually it is not easy to interpret. As often happens when one tries to deepen the meaning of the textual evidence about the Sabians <ref>285</ref>, the sense of the document is not completely clear in this case either. At first sight it would seem that the word ''matras ''is a sort of password, providing the external boundaries of the concrete religious goal which the people here at stake are pointing to. After what we have learnt about the Persian name for Christians – ''Tarsakàn ''- from Pines’ study, in fact, we can be reasonably sure that the individuals in question by pronouncing such a word would roughly intend to embrace the idea of ''religious fear''.
  
But the imperative form of the verb remains still quite problematic: how is it possible for a person vanquished by another to say (to him): “Do not fear!? Has there ever been a mistake in the transcription of the verb’s tense ? Everything becomes very much clearer, though, when one takes into account the well-known Old Testament formula ''‘al-tirà ''(“do not fear!), recurring in many different literary and social contexts, among which one in particular deserves our attention being exactly paralleled by the story handed down by al-Bukhàrì: the (Holy) War. The general encourages his soldiers to fight precisely by means of the expression “do not fear!, which on the other hand belongs to the “stereotyped phraseology” of holy war also beyond the borders of the Jewish culture <ref>285 bis)</ref>.
+
But the imperative form of the verb remains still quite problematic: how is it possible for a person vanquished by another to say (to him): ''Do not fear!'' ? Has there ever been a mistake in the transcription of the verb’s tense ? Everything becomes very much clearer, though, when one takes into account the well-known Old Testament formula ''‘al-tirà ''(''do not fear!''), recurring in many different literary and social contexts, among which one in particular deserves our attention being exactly paralleled by the story handed down by al-Bukhàrì: the (Holy) War. The general encourages his soldiers to fight precisely by means of the expression ''do not fear!'', which on the other hand belongs to the ''stereotyped phraseology'' of holy war also beyond the borders of the Jewish culture <ref>285 bis)</ref>.
  
We are therefore able to state that the commonly accepted translation of the verb ''saba’na'', namely “we (want to) become Sabians”, is very probably not the right one, and that it should rather be changed into “we (want to) become God-Fearers”, or “Christians”, as well as plainly “Monotheists”.
+
We are therefore able to state that the commonly accepted translation of the verb ''saba’na'', namely ''we (want to) become Sabians'', is very probably not the right one, and that it should rather be changed into ''we (want to) become God-Fearers'', or ''Christians'', as well as plainly ''Monotheists''.
  
 
==Harranians’ Cult of the Most-High God==
 
==Harranians’ Cult of the Most-High God==
  
The last problem which we must discuss is the Harranian religious position. As we have said more than once, the version contained in al-Nadìm’s ''Fihrist ''of the reasons why Harranians chose to assume the name “Sabians” during the first half of the III H./IX C.E. century, seems to us at least partially unbelievable, and we think with Hjarpe that it can be sufficiently explained through the needs of religious controversy <ref>286</ref>: the historical source from which al-Nadìm takes this information is in fact the Christian Abù Yusùf al-Qathii, namely the author of the “Talking Head”, the horrible story recorded later by the same ''Fihrist ''<ref>287</ref>: no doubt, therefore, about this person’s wish of denigrate the Harranian people and their ritual practices, by shedding on them all the most unfavourable light <ref>288</ref>.
+
The last problem which we must discuss is the Harranian religious position. As we have said more than once, the version contained in al-Nadìm’s ''Fihrist ''of the reasons why Harranians chose to assume the name ''Sabians'' during the first half of the III H./IX C.E. century, seems to us at least partially unbelievable, and we think with Hjarpe that it can be sufficiently explained through the needs of religious controversy <ref>286</ref>: the historical source from which al-Nadìm takes this information is in fact the Christian Abù Yusùf al-Qathii, namely the author of the ''Talking Head'', the horrible story recorded later by the same ''Fihrist ''<ref>287</ref>: no doubt, therefore, about this person’s wish of denigrate the Harranian people and their ritual practices, by shedding on them all the most unfavourable light <ref>288</ref>.
  
Well, let us look more seriously at the picture. It is not possible that Harranians could have continued to follow their ancient traditions in the open air for centuries if their religious position was not able to be included within a Monotheistic pattern, and if it had been, consequently, in striking contradiction with the surrounding Islamic milieu <ref>289</ref>. But we believe, however, that it was absolutely not an affair of corruption, and that it certainly was not just by means of a lot of naive lies and shameful bribes – as the ''Fihrist ''and other textual sources of the Middle Ages would have the reader believe <ref>290 </ref>- that Harràn (a centre which for some years was the Ummayad Caliphate’s capital city! <ref>291</ref>) could keep its ancient beliefs and rites alive without undergoing any repression by the dominant Muslim government: on the contrary, as everybody knows, many Harranians enjoyed the Caliphs’ confidence and were held in high esteem because of their philosophical and scientific worth, mostly in the field of astronomy and mathematics’ <ref>292</ref>, and it was surely not because of a simple “varnish” of Monotheism such as the one which the Harranian Sabians would have boasted according to M.J. De Goeje’s old opinion <ref>293</ref>.
+
Well, let us look more seriously at the picture. It is not possible that Harranians could have continued to follow their ancient traditions in the open air for centuries if their religious position was not able to be included within a Monotheistic pattern, and if it had been, consequently, in striking contradiction with the surrounding Islamic milieu <ref>289</ref>. But we believe, however, that it was absolutely not an affair of corruption, and that it certainly was not just by means of a lot of naive lies and shameful bribes – as the ''Fihrist ''and other textual sources of the Middle Ages would have the reader believe <ref>290 </ref>- that Harràn (a centre which for some years was the Ummayad Caliphate’s capital city! <ref>291</ref>) could keep its ancient beliefs and rites alive without undergoing any repression by the dominant Muslim government: on the contrary, as everybody knows, many Harranians enjoyed the Caliphs’ confidence and were held in high esteem because of their philosophical and scientific worth, mostly in the field of astronomy and mathematics’ <ref>292</ref>, and it was surely not because of a simple ''varnish'' of Monotheism such as the one which the Harranian Sabians would have boasted according to M.J. De Goeje’s old opinion <ref>293</ref>.
  
To demonstrate that the highly sophisticated theology adopted by the Harranian people corresponds to a Monotheistic point of view is an automatic action: the Neoplatonic system which dominates their conception of the ''kosmos ''<ref>294</ref>, with the spiritual Beings living in it and acting as Mediators between Man and God, who dwells beyond all heavenly heights and therefore cannot directly communicate with him, is evident proof of that by itself <ref>295</ref>. It is important to stress the expressions by which such a transcendental Deity was named by Harranians, because it makes clear that their religious horizon was perfectly in keeping with the theology of ''TheòsHypsistos ''which we have recognized as the most characteristic feature of the God- Fearers’ cult. The document which proves beyond any doubt that both contexts share the same faith in One Most-High God is the famous manual of Magic, the ''Gayàt al-Hakìm ''(''The Aim of the Sage'') <ref>296</ref>, better known in its Latin form ''Picatrix ''<ref>297 </ref>under which it was widespread in Europe during the Middle Ages, and which represents moreover one of the best existing sources of information about the Harranian Sabians. Well, in the introductory section of the ''Gayà ''to the “planetary prayers”, where the general prescriptions to be observed before the beginning of the rite are listed, the author urges the faithful to: “First of all fill yourself with fear of God”: it is worth noting here that not only one finds out just the “pass-word” which we are expecting, the “Most-High” <ref>298 </ref>(God), but also the reference to the spiritual “fear” which we have learnt to be a God-Fearers’ typical attitude of mind. The fact that such expressions are not here by chance is demonstrated later on, throughout what we can call the “Monotheistic series” <ref>299 </ref>of these astral invocations, because the repetition of a particular formula is required every time that the worshipper addresses himself to a planetary deity to fulfil his own desires: the formula in fact begins with the words: “For the sake of the Lord of the High Building” <ref>300</ref>, where the hint to God’s Exceeding Highness is explicitly made once again in order to obtain the divine intercession before undertaking any ritual action.
+
To demonstrate that the highly sophisticated theology adopted by the Harranian people corresponds to a Monotheistic point of view is an automatic action: the Neoplatonic system which dominates their conception of the ''kosmos ''<ref>294</ref>, with the spiritual Beings living in it and acting as Mediators between Man and God, who dwells beyond all heavenly heights and therefore cannot directly communicate with him, is evident proof of that by itself <ref>295</ref>. It is important to stress the expressions by which such a transcendental Deity was named by Harranians, because it makes clear that their religious horizon was perfectly in keeping with the theology of ''TheòsHypsistos ''which we have recognized as the most characteristic feature of the God- Fearers’ cult. The document which proves beyond any doubt that both contexts share the same faith in One Most-High God is the famous manual of Magic, the ''Gayàt al-Hakìm ''(''The Aim of the Sage'') <ref>296</ref>, better known in its Latin form ''Picatrix ''<ref>297 </ref>under which it was widespread in Europe during the Middle Ages, and which represents moreover one of the best existing sources of information about the Harranian Sabians. Well, in the introductory section of the ''Gayà ''to the ''planetary prayers'', where the general prescriptions to be observed before the beginning of the rite are listed, the author urges the faithful to: ''First of all fill yourself with fear of God'': it is worth noting here that not only one finds out just the ''pass-word'' which we are expecting, the ''Most-High'' <ref>298 </ref>(God), but also the reference to the spiritual ''fear'' which we have learnt to be a God-Fearers’ typical attitude of mind. The fact that such expressions are not here by chance is demonstrated later on, throughout what we can call the ''Monotheistic series'' <ref>299 </ref>of these astral invocations, because the repetition of a particular formula is required every time that the worshipper addresses himself to a planetary deity to fulfil his own desires: the formula in fact begins with the words: ''For the sake of the Lord of the High Building'' <ref>300</ref>, where the hint to God’s Exceeding Highness is explicitly made once again in order to obtain the divine intercession before undertaking any ritual action.
  
What nobody has ever proved until now – as far as we know – is that also the “popular” religion of Harràn could correspond to a Monotheistic pattern, that is the crucial move allowing us to set Abù Yusuf al-Qathii’s calumnies aside definitively. >From this point of view one can adduce in fact Sumatar Harabesi’s evidence, where many Syriac inscriptions dating back to 165 C.E. have been found invoking ''Sìn'', the God”, or ''Sìn Marilahé'', or, finally, simply ''Marilahé ''(“The Lord of the Gods”) <ref>301</ref>. The open-air shrine of Sumatar Harabesi lies a few kilometres North-East of Harràn, and there can be no doubt about the close religious relations existing between both places: despite Segal’s speculations about the identity of ''Marilaha ''(that was his reading of the divine name, “The Lord God”) with ''Baal Shamin'', the “Lord of the Heavens” of the Semitic pantheon, the equation ''Marilahé ''= Moon-God ''Sìn ''has been demonstrated with certainty <ref>302</ref>: in Neo-Babylonian times (half of the VI B.C.E. c.), the Moon Deity was addressed in identical terms, ''Sìn ''Lord of the gods” (''Sìn bèl shà ilani'') according to the famous Nabonide’s inscription discovered in Harràn <ref>303</ref>, as it happened still in IV H./X C.E. c. according to an Harranian cultic calendar (''Rabbu ‘làlihati'') handed down once again by al-Nadìm <ref>304</ref>.
+
What nobody has ever proved until now – as far as we know – is that also the ''popular'' religion of Harràn could correspond to a Monotheistic pattern, that is the crucial move allowing us to set Abù Yusuf al-Qathii’s calumnies aside definitively. >From this point of view one can adduce in fact Sumatar Harabesi’s evidence, where many Syriac inscriptions dating back to 165 C.E. have been found invoking ''''Sìn'', the God'', or ''Sìn Marilahé'', or, finally, simply ''Marilahé ''(''The Lord of the Gods'') <ref>301</ref>. The open-air shrine of Sumatar Harabesi lies a few kilometres North-East of Harràn, and there can be no doubt about the close religious relations existing between both places: despite Segal’s speculations about the identity of ''Marilaha ''(that was his reading of the divine name, ''The Lord God'') with ''Baal Shamin'', the ''Lord of the Heavens'' of the Semitic pantheon, the equation ''Marilahé ''= Moon-God ''Sìn ''has been demonstrated with certainty <ref>302</ref>: in Neo-Babylonian times (half of the VI B.C.E. c.), the Moon Deity was addressed in identical terms, ''''Sìn ''Lord of the gods'' (''Sìn bèl shà ilani'') according to the famous Nabonide’s inscription discovered in Harràn <ref>303</ref>, as it happened still in IV H./X C.E. c. according to an Harranian cultic calendar (''Rabbu ‘làlihati'') handed down once again by al-Nadìm <ref>304</ref>.
  
If one leaves aside the evidence of Hatra, where some coins with the ''legenda SYNMRLH’ ''have been found in 1958 <ref>305</ref>, it would seem that Sumatar inscriptions were the only epigraphic witness of ''Marilahé''’s existence. But the 1970 discovery in Palmyra of an engraved block of stone mentioning again the “Lord of the gods” moves changes things. Even if the identity ''Sìn ''= ''Marilahè ''is problematic in Palmyra, because the Moon-God at the head of the pantheon is not under discussion here <ref>306</ref>, this evidence suggests, on the other hand, that such a divine attribute in an Aramaic environment is to be considered similar, if not identical, to the Greek expression ''Theòs Hypsistos'', so that it becomes specially interesting for us. In the same Palmyrian “Diocletian’s Campus”, 11 dedications to “the unnamed God” - also invoked in terms of “Lord of the World” and “Lord of the Universe”, “autant de dénominations parallèles à celle de ‘Seigneur des dieux’ according to M. Gawlikowski who first published the document <ref>307 </ref>- have been found by the Polish archaeological mission working upon this site; but the bilingual Latin-Greek dedication discovered in the near “Temple des Enseignes” even more explicitly fits our needs, since we are dealing with an ''ex-voto ''to ''Zeus Hypsistos ''whose name is rightly translated by ''Iuppiter Optimus Maximus ''in the Latin version of the same text <ref>308</ref>. We are facing, therefore a clear Monotheistic context here, where different ways to name the Supreme Deity appear simultaneously. The Monotheistic trend in Late Antiquity often raised to the head of the pantheon just one ''agnòstos theòs'', one “Anonymous God” <ref>309</ref>, but in many situations this highest status was rather taken by the divinity that had been previously placed in the most prominent position of the pantheon, such as it was the case of ''Sìn ''at Harràn <ref>310</ref>. The reason why it was impossible for Harranians to use a divine epithet having a semantic value exactly equivalent to ''Hypsistos ''is quite evident: the Moon, both in the “Caldaean” astronomical model and in the “Greek” one <ref>311</ref>, occupies the lowest place among the planets, so that it would have seemed contradictory to name the deity ruling over this heavenly body with an attribute such as “the Highest”, in spite of the god’s paramount rank largely acknowledged by his devotees.
+
If one leaves aside the evidence of Hatra, where some coins with the ''legenda SYNMRLH’ ''have been found in 1958 <ref>305</ref>, it would seem that Sumatar inscriptions were the only epigraphic witness of ''Marilahé''’s existence. But the 1970 discovery in Palmyra of an engraved block of stone mentioning again the ''Lord of the gods'' moves changes things. Even if the identity ''Sìn ''= ''Marilahè ''is problematic in Palmyra, because the Moon-God at the head of the pantheon is not under discussion here <ref>306</ref>, this evidence suggests, on the other hand, that such a divine attribute in an Aramaic environment is to be considered similar, if not identical, to the Greek expression ''Theòs Hypsistos'', so that it becomes specially interesting for us. In the same Palmyrian ''Diocletian’s Campus'', 11 dedications to ''the unnamed God'' - also invoked in terms of ''Lord of the World'' and ''Lord of the Universe'', ''autant de dénominations parallèles à celle de ‘Seigneur des dieux’ '' according to M. Gawlikowski who first published the document <ref>307 </ref>- have been found by the Polish archaeological mission working upon this site; but the bilingual Latin-Greek dedication discovered in the near ''Temple des Enseignes'' even more explicitly fits our needs, since we are dealing with an ''ex-voto ''to ''Zeus Hypsistos ''whose name is rightly translated by ''Iuppiter Optimus Maximus ''in the Latin version of the same text <ref>308</ref>. We are facing, therefore a clear Monotheistic context here, where different ways to name the Supreme Deity appear simultaneously. The Monotheistic trend in Late Antiquity often raised to the head of the pantheon just one ''agnòstos theòs'', one ''Anonymous God'' <ref>309</ref>, but in many situations this highest status was rather taken by the divinity that had been previously placed in the most prominent position of the pantheon, such as it was the case of ''Sìn ''at Harràn <ref>310</ref>. The reason why it was impossible for Harranians to use a divine epithet having a semantic value exactly equivalent to ''Hypsistos ''is quite evident: the Moon, both in the ''Caldaean'' astronomical model and in the ''Greek'' one <ref>311</ref>, occupies the lowest place among the planets, so that it would have seemed contradictory to name the deity ruling over this heavenly body with an attribute such as ''the Highest'', in spite of the god’s paramount rank largely acknowledged by his devotees.
  
We will finally try to understand whether, and up to what limits the “popular” religion of Harràn could be accepted by the surrounding Muslim State without any problem, provided that its natural features corresponded to a true expression of Monotheism such as Sabianism, namely “God-worship”/''Theosèbeia''. For this purpose, we shall analyse a well-known document about the Harranians recorded by al-Ma’sùdi, the sole witness to have personally visited – as M. Tardieu did not fail rightly to stress <ref>312 </ref>- the city of the Moon-God at the beginning of the IV H./X C.E. century. After having explained the religious traditions of this ancient people, by comparing their attitude of mind with the position of the Greek “philosophers” <ref>313</ref>, the great Arabian historian concludes his paragraphs in the ''Murùj ''about Harràn by quoting the Arabic translation of the Syriac saying engraved upon the door of the only temple still existing there at that time. The saying, ascribed by him to Plato, recites ''Man ‘arafa dhata-hu ta’allaha ''<ref>314</ref>, and has been discussed at length by scholars who have interpreted it in various ways: Chwolson proposed the reading “Wer seines (Gottes) Wesen erkennt, der verhert ihn auch” <ref>315 </ref>- though he was also aware that the sentence was clearly marked back to Apollo’s precept ''gnòthi sautòn ''<ref>316 </ref>- followed by the first French editor of ''al-Murùj adh-dhaàb'', B. de Meynard (“Celui qui connaît Dieu le redoute”) <ref>317</ref>. Tardieu - who collected information to demonstrate the migration of the last Neoplatonists, after Justinian closed the Academy of Athen (525 C.E.), from Greece to Harràn, where from then on Neoplatonist learning was to survive unexpectedly for centuries - bitterly criticised such a translation, by remembering the second French edition of the ''Murùj ''by Ch. Pellat, who rather translated the maxim: “Celui qui connaît sa nature devient dieu” <ref>318</ref>. He did not notice, however, that an identical (French) translation had also been given by H. Corbin in his study “Rituel sabéen et exégèse ismaelienne du rituel” <ref>319</ref>, probably for fear that such an observation could compromise his hypothesis about the Neoplatonist Academy’s survival in Harràn.
+
We will finally try to understand whether, and up to what limits the ''popular'' religion of Harràn could be accepted by the surrounding Muslim State without any problem, provided that its natural features corresponded to a true expression of Monotheism such as Sabianism, namely ''God-worship''/''Theosèbeia''. For this purpose, we shall analyse a well-known document about the Harranians recorded by al-Ma’sùdi, the sole witness to have personally visited – as M. Tardieu did not fail rightly to stress <ref>312 </ref>- the city of the Moon-God at the beginning of the IV H./X C.E. century. After having explained the religious traditions of this ancient people, by comparing their attitude of mind with the position of the Greek ''philosophers'' <ref>313</ref>, the great Arabian historian concludes his paragraphs in the ''Murùj ''about Harràn by quoting the Arabic translation of the Syriac saying engraved upon the door of the only temple still existing there at that time. The saying, ascribed by him to Plato, recites ''Man ‘arafa dhata-hu ta’allaha ''<ref>314</ref>, and has been discussed at length by scholars who have interpreted it in various ways: Chwolson proposed the reading ''Wer seines (Gottes) Wesen erkennt, der verhert ihn auch'' <ref>315 </ref>- though he was also aware that the sentence was clearly marked back to Apollo’s precept ''gnòthi sautòn ''<ref>316 </ref>- followed by the first French editor of ''al-Murùj adh-dhaàb'', B. de Meynard (''Celui qui connaît Dieu le redoute'') <ref>317</ref>. Tardieu - who collected information to demonstrate the migration of the last Neoplatonists, after Justinian closed the Academy of Athen (525 C.E.), from Greece to Harràn, where from then on Neoplatonist learning was to survive unexpectedly for centuries - bitterly criticised such a translation, by remembering the second French edition of the ''Murùj ''by Ch. Pellat, who rather translated the maxim: ''Celui qui connaît sa nature devient dieu'' <ref>318</ref>. He did not notice, however, that an identical (French) translation had also been given by H. Corbin in his study ''Rituel sabéen et exégèse ismaelienne du rituel'' <ref>319</ref>, probably for fear that such an observation could compromise his hypothesis about the Neoplatonist Academy’s survival in Harràn.
  
Actually we think that four virtual translations are simultaneously acceptable, though it is evident that, according to whether one chooses one translation or the other, the meaning of the saying, and consequently the Harranian position, must also change. We have already mentioned an excerpt from Seneca’s ''Epistle XCV ''(leaving apart the problem of Plato’s alleged authority) almost corresponding to the Harràn maxim, because it just goes as follows: ''Deum colit qui novit ''<ref>320</ref>, without openly stating yet what it is the subject should know, whether God or himself; usually, however, the statement is interpreted in general terms, namely in terms of universal knowledge, and is quite reasonable. Moreover, such a translation is perfectly in accordance with Muslim religious needs, since a charge of impiety and/or heresy against a similar sentence (with the doctrinal background which it naturally implies, of course) could certainly not be brought, so that it could be displayed openly to the Islamic public without raising any scandal. Finally, most important of all, this choice enjoys a lot of (quasi-)equivalent expressions through the Hermetic literature, which is the cultural framework closest to the philosophical-religious position of the Harranian Sabians, if it is true that precisely Harràn was one of the most relevant motherhomes to Hermetism during the Middle Ages <ref>321</ref>, while its learned men gave an exceptionally heavy impulse and new vital sap to the so-called “Arabian Hermetism”: we limit ourselves to quoting two items only, the first one by Lactance: ''è gàr eusèbeia gnòsisestì'' ''toù theoù ''(“Piety is the knowledge of [the] God”) <ref>322</ref>, the second one contained in the ''Treatise IX ''of the ''Corpus Hermeticum'': ''eusèbeia dè esti theoù gnòsis ''(“Piety is God’s Knowledge”) <ref>323</ref>; in these last sentences the meaning of the Senecan ''Epistle’''s excerpt (and that of the Harranian saying too) appears in fact to be really the same, as it emerged already from R. Reitzenstein’s remarks about the Harràn maxim which ''gnosis ''und ''eusèbeia ''identifiziert” <ref>324</ref>.
+
Actually we think that four virtual translations are simultaneously acceptable, though it is evident that, according to whether one chooses one translation or the other, the meaning of the saying, and consequently the Harranian position, must also change. We have already mentioned an excerpt from Seneca’s ''Epistle XCV ''(leaving apart the problem of Plato’s alleged authority) almost corresponding to the Harràn maxim, because it just goes as follows: ''Deum colit qui novit ''<ref>320</ref>, without openly stating yet what it is the subject should know, whether God or himself; usually, however, the statement is interpreted in general terms, namely in terms of universal knowledge, and is quite reasonable. Moreover, such a translation is perfectly in accordance with Muslim religious needs, since a charge of impiety and/or heresy against a similar sentence (with the doctrinal background which it naturally implies, of course) could certainly not be brought, so that it could be displayed openly to the Islamic public without raising any scandal. Finally, most important of all, this choice enjoys a lot of (quasi-)equivalent expressions through the Hermetic literature, which is the cultural framework closest to the philosophical-religious position of the Harranian Sabians, if it is true that precisely Harràn was one of the most relevant motherhomes to Hermetism during the Middle Ages <ref>321</ref>, while its learned men gave an exceptionally heavy impulse and new vital sap to the so-called ''Arabian Hermetism'': we limit ourselves to quoting two items only, the first one by Lactance: ''è gàr eusèbeia gnòsisestì'' ''toù theoù ''(''Piety is the knowledge of [the] God'') <ref>322</ref>, the second one contained in the ''Treatise IX ''of the ''Corpus Hermeticum'': ''eusèbeia dè esti theoù gnòsis ''(''Piety is God’s Knowledge'') <ref>323</ref>; in these last sentences the meaning of the Senecan ''Epistle’''s excerpt (and that of the Harranian saying too) appears in fact to be really the same, as it emerged already from R. Reitzenstein’s remarks about the Harràn maxim which ''''gnosis ''und ''eusèbeia ''identifiziert'' <ref>324</ref>.
  
It should not be forgotten that the idea of “becoming God”, of “deifying oneself” (but see Dante’s unusual verbal form “indiarsi”, also!) <ref>325 </ref>belongs fully to Hermetic conceptions, and therefore we do not absolutely rule out that such a translation of the Arabic verb ''ta’allaha ''might be possible nor that Harranians had just this meaning secretly in mind by writing such a word upon the door of their great shrine; but it could not be proposed with such a sense to the Muslim neighbouring public <ref>326</ref>, whereas the meaning “to worship”, “to adore” etc. (in a Monotheistic sense) is really plain and does not raise any sort of difficulty <ref>327</ref>. On the contrary, it seems to us that there are not enough elements allowing us to decide whether the “knowledge” mentioned in the first half of the sentence precisely refers to God or to one’s own nature. We propose, therefore, the following “open” translation which is, in any case, the natural issue of our whole discussion: “Who knows His (of God) nature is a man who worships One (Most-High) God”, and/or “Who knows his (own) nature is a man who worships One (Most-High) God”, where the final expression has to be rather rendered into the periphrastic form “who is a (One Most-High) God-worshipper”, or, even better, into the only word “who is a Sabian”.
+
It should not be forgotten that the idea of ''becoming God'', of ''deifying oneself'' (but see Dante’s unusual verbal form ''indiarsi'', also!) <ref>325 </ref>belongs fully to Hermetic conceptions, and therefore we do not absolutely rule out that such a translation of the Arabic verb ''ta’allaha ''might be possible nor that Harranians had just this meaning secretly in mind by writing such a word upon the door of their great shrine; but it could not be proposed with such a sense to the Muslim neighbouring public <ref>326</ref>, whereas the meaning ''to worship'', ''to adore'' etc. (in a Monotheistic sense) is really plain and does not raise any sort of difficulty <ref>327</ref>. On the contrary, it seems to us that there are not enough elements allowing us to decide whether the ''knowledge'' mentioned in the first half of the sentence precisely refers to God or to one’s own nature. We propose, therefore, the following ''open'' translation which is, in any case, the natural issue of our whole discussion: ''Who knows His (of God) nature is a man who worships One (Most-High) God'', and/or ''Who knows his (own) nature is a man who worships One (Most-High) God'', where the final expression has to be rather rendered into the periphrastic form ''who is a (One Most-High) God-worshipper'', or, even better, into the only word ''who is a Sabian''.
  
 
==A Strictly Etymological Proposal: the Accadian Noun ''Sàbu''==
 
==A Strictly Etymological Proposal: the Accadian Noun ''Sàbu''==
  
As far back as 1649, the orientalist E. Pocock proposed for the first time the idea of identifying the Sabians with “the worshippers of the heavenly army”, “the stars”, to whom the Old Testament often make reference (''sabà hash-shamayim'') <ref>328</ref>. By advancing a similar proposal, the scholar had evidently in mind the astral Magic and generally the astrologic culture which, as a result of Maimonide’s opinion <ref>329</ref>, was known as being the Sabians’ most remarkable feature: so no one wonders why many authors dealing with the “Sabian enigma” went on following his suggestions since that time, as for example the French student Michel Tardieu who simply appears to be the last exponent of this line of thought 330.
+
As far back as 1649, the orientalist E. Pocock proposed for the first time the idea of identifying the Sabians with ''the worshippers of the heavenly army'', ''the stars'', to whom the Old Testament often make reference (''sabà hash-shamayim'') <ref>328</ref>. By advancing a similar proposal, the scholar had evidently in mind the astral Magic and generally the astrologic culture which, as a result of Maimonide’s opinion <ref>329</ref>, was known as being the Sabians’ most remarkable feature: so no one wonders why many authors dealing with the ''Sabian enigma'' went on following his suggestions since that time, as for example the French student Michel Tardieu who simply appears to be the last exponent of this line of thought 330.
  
Actually the noun ''sabà ''means “soldiers, army, military service” 331, but we guess that, if the Hebrew root ''SBA ''– both in nominal and in verbal form – has really some connections with the historical beginnings of the Sabian question, it is absolutely not because Sabianism is an astral religion or a form of heavenly idolatry, since the Harranian Sabianism itself cannot be entirely reduced to that. It is very tempting, for example, to imagine that the word had some relations with the cult(s) practised in a military environment, namely within a human milieu made up of mixed ethnical elements, by various nationalities, where the “strangers’ ” dominant presence was the rule rather than the exception 332. For the moment, however, without increasing what L. Massignon once felicitously called “le roman syncrétistique des Sabéens” 333 with other fruitless speculations, it is worth paying more attention to the semantic values of the Hebrew root, considering the literary sources which allow us to see more in detail its several practical uses. Following this theme, one is given a genuine surprise: through the ''Torah'', in fact, the terms connected to this root systematically recur in relation with the particular priestly duties and privileges of Levi’s tribe. Let us read, for instance, chapter IV of ''Numbers'', verses 1-3: “And the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: ‘Take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, after their families, by the house of their fathers, from thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, ''to do the work ''in the tabernacle of the congregation’ 334.
+
Actually the noun ''sabà ''means ''soldiers, army, military service'' 331, but we guess that, if the Hebrew root ''SBA ''– both in nominal and in verbal form – has really some connections with the historical beginnings of the Sabian question, it is absolutely not because Sabianism is an astral religion or a form of heavenly idolatry, since the Harranian Sabianism itself cannot be entirely reduced to that. It is very tempting, for example, to imagine that the word had some relations with the cult(s) practised in a military environment, namely within a human milieu made up of mixed ethnical elements, by various nationalities, where the ''strangers’ '' dominant presence was the rule rather than the exception 332. For the moment, however, without increasing what L. Massignon once felicitously called ''le roman syncrétistique des Sabéens'' 333 with other fruitless speculations, it is worth paying more attention to the semantic values of the Hebrew root, considering the literary sources which allow us to see more in detail its several practical uses. Following this theme, one is given a genuine surprise: through the ''Torah'', in fact, the terms connected to this root systematically recur in relation with the particular priestly duties and privileges of Levi’s tribe. Let us read, for instance, chapter IV of ''Numbers'', verses 1-3: ''And the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: ‘Take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, after their families, by the house of their fathers, from thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, ''to do the work ''in the tabernacle of the congregation’ '' 334.
  
It is not difficult to see the close semantic links between the military service and the special tasks imposed on the members of the Levite clan which can be paralleled because of the similarity that exists between the soldier’s heavy burdens and the Levite’ weighty responsibilities consisting in carrying out their sacerdotal duties in the Temple. But there is more than that. The concept of “service” seems in fact to recur not fortuitously through the available textual evidence about the Sabians, since we have to do with two items occupying a significant position in the already quoted Arabian manual of Magic ''Gayat al-Hakìm''. The first one is a general definition of the “Sabians”, where it is said that they are nothing else but “the Nabataean ''servants ''of Chaldaeans” 335; in the Latin version of the work, the ''Picatrix'', the whole expression is slightly different, but the semantic bulk of “service” remains unwavering: ''Zabii ''= servi ''capti Chaldaerum ''336. The second text is relevant by itself, because it is part of the ''Gaya''’s introduction to the Sabian planetary prayers: “And among the operations of the Sàbians is what al-Tabari the astrologer says concerning the drawing down of the power of the planets. He says: ‘That which is known to me concerning the drawing down of the planets and their services which I found attributed to the leaders of the Sabians and the servants of the temples, is what I will say. They say …’ 337. We think that the Jewish linguistic background had certainly played a very remarkable role in modelling the Arabic verb(s) ''saba’a/sabà ''and upon the name(s) “Sabian/Sabians” connected with them, both from the point of view of the Hebraic wisdom and from the common usage of language, as we have learnt dealing with the root ''SHUBH ''and with some technical figures of the Hebraic culture like the ''gertoshàb'', as well as with some proper names such as ''Elizabeth ''338''. ''From a strictly etymological point of view, however, we are convinced that, if all these linguistic elements are fully pertinent, they must be considered at the same time in terms of progressive semantic intersections, issuing with an ever-increasing meaningfulness from the original noun which we believe does not come from Hebrew.
+
It is not difficult to see the close semantic links between the military service and the special tasks imposed on the members of the Levite clan which can be paralleled because of the similarity that exists between the soldier’s heavy burdens and the Levite’ weighty responsibilities consisting in carrying out their sacerdotal duties in the Temple. But there is more than that. The concept of ''service'' seems in fact to recur not fortuitously through the available textual evidence about the Sabians, since we have to do with two items occupying a significant position in the already quoted Arabian manual of Magic ''Gayat al-Hakìm''. The first one is a general definition of the ''Sabians'', where it is said that they are nothing else but ''the Nabataean ''servants ''of Chaldaeans'' 335; in the Latin version of the work, the ''Picatrix'', the whole expression is slightly different, but the semantic bulk of ''service'' remains unwavering: ''Zabii ''= servi ''capti Chaldaerum ''336. The second text is relevant by itself, because it is part of the ''Gaya''’s introduction to the Sabian planetary prayers: ''And among the operations of the Sàbians is what al-Tabari the astrologer says concerning the drawing down of the power of the planets. He says: ‘That which is known to me concerning the drawing down of the planets and their services which I found attributed to the leaders of the Sabians and the servants of the temples, is what I will say. They say …’ '' 337. We think that the Jewish linguistic background had certainly played a very remarkable role in modelling the Arabic verb(s) ''saba’a/sabà ''and upon the name(s) ''Sabian/Sabians'' connected with them, both from the point of view of the Hebraic wisdom and from the common usage of language, as we have learnt dealing with the root ''SHUBH ''and with some technical figures of the Hebraic culture like the ''gertoshàb'', as well as with some proper names such as ''Elizabeth ''338''. ''From a strictly etymological point of view, however, we are convinced that, if all these linguistic elements are fully pertinent, they must be considered at the same time in terms of progressive semantic intersections, issuing with an ever-increasing meaningfulness from the original noun which we believe does not come from Hebrew.
  
At this point, we have become familiar with a wide semantic field, the general co-ordinates of which are expressed by terms and concepts such as “People(s), Nation(s), Greek(s), Soldier(s), Stranger(s), Servant(s), etc.. Is there any coherence in that? We think so, mostly after having acknowledged the historical relationships between the particular roles played by these groups of people in reference to the prevailing religion according to the double-faced perspective according to which such a phenomenon was viewed in Late Antiquity, also beyond the frontier of the Roman Empire.
+
At this point, we have become familiar with a wide semantic field, the general co-ordinates of which are expressed by terms and concepts such as ''People(s), Nation(s), Greek(s), Soldier(s), Stranger(s), Servant(s), etc.''. Is there any coherence in that? We think so, mostly after having acknowledged the historical relationships between the particular roles played by these groups of people in reference to the prevailing religion according to the double-faced perspective according to which such a phenomenon was viewed in Late Antiquity, also beyond the frontier of the Roman Empire.
  
On the other hand, we have performed a short but essential survey about the third big Monotheistic community besides Jews and Christians occupying a significant place within the religious framework of Late Antiquity, the God-Fearers. Even if they did not define themselves by the same variety of names, we have observed a lot of technical terms in different languages by which their neighbours used to call and recognise these groups of believers: these expressions range from “God-Fearers” (''Phoboùmenoi tòn Theòn'', ''Metuentes Deum''), “God-Worshippers” (''Sebòmenoi tònTheòn'', ''Theosebeìs'', ''Colentes Deum''), Heaven(s)-Worshippers (''Yere’i ash-shamayim'', ''Caelicolae''), “Devotees of the Most-High God” (''Hypsistarii'', ''Hypsistiani''), “Those who pray” (''Massaliani''), “Those who bless” (''Euphemitai''), “Those who leave their religion (for another)(''Hunafà’''). Besides, one can add perhaps the other two expressions used for naming Christians which we were dealing with: “Fearers” (''Tarsakàn'') and “The Servants” (''al-Ibàd'').
+
On the other hand, we have performed a short but essential survey about the third big Monotheistic community besides Jews and Christians occupying a significant place within the religious framework of Late Antiquity, the God-Fearers. Even if they did not define themselves by the same variety of names, we have observed a lot of technical terms in different languages by which their neighbours used to call and recognise these groups of believers: these expressions range from ''God-Fearers'' (''Phoboùmenoi tòn Theòn'', ''Metuentes Deum''), ''God-Worshippers'' (''Sebòmenoi tònTheòn'', ''Theosebeìs'', ''Colentes Deum''), Heaven(s)-Worshippers (''Yere’i ash-shamayim'', ''Caelicolae''), ''Devotees of the Most-High God'' (''Hypsistarii'', ''Hypsistiani''), ''Those who pray'' (''Massaliani''), ''Those who bless'' (''Euphemitai''), ''Those who leave their religion (for another)'' (''Hunafà’''). Besides, one can add perhaps the other two expressions used for naming Christians which we were dealing with: ''Fearers'' (''Tarsakàn'') and ''The Servants'' (''al-Ibàd'').
  
The inter-linguistic antecedent parallel of the above observed Hebrew term ''sabà'' is, as it not seldom happens, an Accadian one. Let us read what the ''Chicago AssyrianDictionary ''accounts for: ''sàbu'': s. masc.; group of people, contingent of workers, troop of soldiers, army, people, population; from OAkk. on; mostly used as a collective, pl. ''sàbù'', for ''sàbiu ''(Oakk.) see discussion, stat. const. ''sàb ''and ''sàbi'', wr. syll. and (LU)ERIN.MESH, ERIN.KHLA” 340. At first sight the noun seems to be in perfect phonetic correspondence with the Arabic common plural ''Sàbi’ùn ''as well as with the collective plural ''Sàbi’a ''(and also with the more unusual forms ''Sàbùn'', ''Sàba''). Concerning the meaning, it is possible to imagine a semantic evolution someway similar to the well-known process undergone by the Hebrew noun ''gèr'', whose primary meaning of “stranger” developed as a consequence of the deep changes within the Israelite society in the course of centuries, evolving therefore from the original social meaning and evolving towards the social-religious one of “full convert to Judaism”, namely of “proselyte” 341. Mostly because the Accadian noun does not fail to show a singular religious value linked – as far as we understand ''Dictionary''’s quotations – to the activity of the temple’s specialized “personnel” 342. If the last one is really the true origin of the word, Arabic ''Sàbi’ùn ''would literally mean simply “People”, but with a particular religious nuance due to the numerous lexical intersections which we have met, the most important of which is surely that of “leaving one’s religion in order to worship One Most-High God”.
+
The inter-linguistic antecedent parallel of the above observed Hebrew term ''sabà'' is, as it not seldom happens, an Accadian one. Let us read what the ''Chicago AssyrianDictionary ''accounts for: ''''sàbu'': s. masc.; group of people, contingent of workers, troop of soldiers, army, people, population; from OAkk. on; mostly used as a collective, pl. ''sàbù'', for ''sàbiu ''(Oakk.) see discussion, stat. const. ''sàb ''and ''sàbi'', wr. syll. and (LU)ERIN.MESH, ERIN.KHLA'' 340. At first sight the noun seems to be in perfect phonetic correspondence with the Arabic common plural ''Sàbi’ùn ''as well as with the collective plural ''Sàbi’a ''(and also with the more unusual forms ''Sàbùn'', ''Sàba''). Concerning the meaning, it is possible to imagine a semantic evolution someway similar to the well-known process undergone by the Hebrew noun ''gèr'', whose primary meaning of ''stranger'' developed as a consequence of the deep changes within the Israelite society in the course of centuries, evolving therefore from the original social meaning and evolving towards the social-religious one of ''full convert to Judaism'', namely of ''proselyte'' 341. Mostly because the Accadian noun does not fail to show a singular religious value linked – as far as we understand ''Dictionary''’s quotations – to the activity of the temple’s specialized ''personnel'' 342. If the last one is really the true origin of the word, Arabic ''Sàbi’ùn ''would literally mean simply ''People'', but with a particular religious nuance due to the numerous lexical intersections which we have met, the most important of which is surely that of ''leaving one’s religion in order to worship One Most-High God''.
  
 
==Conclusions==
 
==Conclusions==
  
The strength of the idea of identifying the Sabians with the God-Fearers, namely the worshippers of One Most-High God, lies in the exceptional correspondence of the latter group not only with the three Koranic paragraphs mentioning ''Sàbi’ùn'', but also with most of the Arab-Islamic sources of the Middle Ages, in spite of the often hazy, loose, or even contradictory nature of such information. As far as the ''Koran''’s passages are concerned, we believe that the chains Muslims-Jews-Christians-Sabians (''Sura ''II), Muslims, Jews, Sabians Christians (''Sura ''V) and Muslims-Jews-SabiansChristians- Magians-Unbelievers (''Sura ''XXII) should be understood in terms of a sketch-map of the Universal Religions, though not chronologically listed, in some way similar to the one contained in Aristide’s ''Apology ''or to the other one shown by the famous ''Kartìr''’s Mid-Persian ''Inscription'': consequently, we find it impossible that the place of the Sabian group within the Muslims’ Holy Book might be occupied by a simple sect such as Mandaeans, even if the last important work recently published on the subject by S. Gunduz goes on presenting this old theory once again. But an even more important reason why only God-Fearers appear perfectly able to take upon themselves the problematic identity of this community is that no other one possesses the singular features drawn by the definition of the Sabians often recurring in many literary sources, namely that they are “a religious group which has no cult, scripture and prophet, admitting only the ''tawhìd'', the profession of faith: ‘There is no god but God’”. A religion with similar features is a kind of a paradox, but God-Fearers prove that the contrary is true: the available evidence about their beliefs and ritual practices, in fact, is quite meagre, as well as that about their gathering places, so that on the whole one can just state that they shared the universal code of moral-religious duties generally known by the label of “Noachite laws”.
+
The strength of the idea of identifying the Sabians with the God-Fearers, namely the worshippers of One Most-High God, lies in the exceptional correspondence of the latter group not only with the three Koranic paragraphs mentioning ''Sàbi’ùn'', but also with most of the Arab-Islamic sources of the Middle Ages, in spite of the often hazy, loose, or even contradictory nature of such information. As far as the ''Koran''’s passages are concerned, we believe that the chains Muslims-Jews-Christians-Sabians (''Sura ''II), Muslims, Jews, Sabians Christians (''Sura ''V) and Muslims-Jews-SabiansChristians- Magians-Unbelievers (''Sura ''XXII) should be understood in terms of a sketch-map of the Universal Religions, though not chronologically listed, in some way similar to the one contained in Aristide’s ''Apology ''or to the other one shown by the famous ''Kartìr''’s Mid-Persian ''Inscription'': consequently, we find it impossible that the place of the Sabian group within the Muslims’ Holy Book might be occupied by a simple sect such as Mandaeans, even if the last important work recently published on the subject by S. Gunduz goes on presenting this old theory once again. But an even more important reason why only God-Fearers appear perfectly able to take upon themselves the problematic identity of this community is that no other one possesses the singular features drawn by the definition of the Sabians often recurring in many literary sources, namely that they are ''a religious group which has no cult, scripture and prophet, admitting only the ''tawhìd'', the profession of faith: ‘There is no god but God’''. A religion with similar features is a kind of a paradox, but God-Fearers prove that the contrary is true: the available evidence about their beliefs and ritual practices, in fact, is quite meagre, as well as that about their gathering places, so that on the whole one can just state that they shared the universal code of moral-religious duties generally known by the label of ''Noachite laws''.
  
We should remember that “Noah’s Laws’” were also the limited set of observances foreseen by the Jerusalem Council (51 C.E.) for uncircumcised Christians (''Ecclesia ex Gentibus''). Together with other common religious features shared by both groups, this factor may explain why the first Latin translation of the ''Koran'', fully corroborating our theory, seems not to distinguish completely between Christians and God-Fearers; the same things happened – as Pines demonstrated - in the regions where different Iranian languages were spoken, since the name for Christians in Persia is still today just ''Tarsakàn'', “Fearers”: this historical confusion may suggest that the “Sabians” mentioned by Muhammad might perhaps be nothing else but an alternative name for “Christians”.
+
We should remember that ''Noah’s Laws’'' were also the limited set of observances foreseen by the Jerusalem Council (51 C.E.) for uncircumcised Christians (''Ecclesia ex Gentibus''). Together with other common religious features shared by both groups, this factor may explain why the first Latin translation of the ''Koran'', fully corroborating our theory, seems not to distinguish completely between Christians and God-Fearers; the same things happened – as Pines demonstrated - in the regions where different Iranian languages were spoken, since the name for Christians in Persia is still today just ''Tarsakàn'', ''Fearers'': this historical confusion may suggest that the ''Sabians'' mentioned by Muhammad might perhaps be nothing else but an alternative name for ''Christians''.
  
Our theoretical proposal is in accordance, besides, with another important traditional opinion about the Sabians, that they are a “people who leave their religion (for another). Such an idea comes apparently from the Arabic root(s) ''SB’/SBW'', but we have checked the Hebrew root ''SHWBH ''which it seems likely had a very significant influence upon the Arabic one(s). Al-Bìrùnì’s statement that the Sabians are “the adherents of the prevailing religion” is closely connected with this line of thought, even if it seems not to derive from lexicographic sources. Needless to say, the last definition just like the previous ones cannot seriously be applied to any existing religion, nor to a religious phenomenon such as Conversion. Surely one of the factors which played a crucial role in this sense, also from a linguistic point of view, was the existence of an original group such as the God-Fearers, who are not adequately defined by a name like “Converts”, but rather by that of “Mid-Converts”, or even better by one of the above recorded periphrastic expressions.
+
Our theoretical proposal is in accordance, besides, with another important traditional opinion about the Sabians, that they are a ''people who leave their religion (for another)''. Such an idea comes apparently from the Arabic root(s) ''SB’/SBW'', but we have checked the Hebrew root ''SHWBH ''which it seems likely had a very significant influence upon the Arabic one(s). Al-Bìrùnì’s statement that the Sabians are ''the adherents of the prevailing religion'' is closely connected with this line of thought, even if it seems not to derive from lexicographic sources. Needless to say, the last definition just like the previous ones cannot seriously be applied to any existing religion, nor to a religious phenomenon such as Conversion. Surely one of the factors which played a crucial role in this sense, also from a linguistic point of view, was the existence of an original group such as the God-Fearers, who are not adequately defined by a name like ''Converts'', but rather by that of ''Mid-Converts'', or even better by one of the above recorded periphrastic expressions.
  
We have observed on the other hand the substantial closeness between God- Fearers and ''Hunafà’'', who likewise are people in search of God without having any cult, scripture and prophet, generally following only the “Noachite Laws”. Yet there is perhaps one difference, namely that the latter are – as far as we know – just individuals, whereas the former are organized groups sharing the same Monotheistic faith, even if is not possible to rule out completely the existence of some scattered ''Hunafà’ ''communities.
+
We have observed on the other hand the substantial closeness between God- Fearers and ''Hunafà’'', who likewise are people in search of God without having any cult, scripture and prophet, generally following only the ''Noachite Laws''. Yet there is perhaps one difference, namely that the latter are – as far as we know – just individuals, whereas the former are organized groups sharing the same Monotheistic faith, even if is not possible to rule out completely the existence of some scattered ''Hunafà’ ''communities.
  
Speaking about the Harranians, the Monotheistic nature of their beliefs has come to light not only in relation to the highly developed Neoplatonic system adopted by their learned men, whose apex is occupied by a transcendental God named “the Most- High” or the “Lord of the High Building” by the famous manual of Magic ''Gayat al-Hakìm ''(''Picatrix''), but also in connection to popular devoutness, as it is shown by the cultic place of Sumatar Harabesi not distant from Harràn, where in the middle of the II c. C.E. the Moon-God ''Sìn ''at the head of the local pantheon was worshipped bearing the title of ''Marilahé ''(“Lord of the gods”), an Aramaic expression which, as some findings in Hatra and Palmyra allow one to understand, is an equivalent of the Greek name ''Theòs Hypsistos''.
+
Speaking about the Harranians, the Monotheistic nature of their beliefs has come to light not only in relation to the highly developed Neoplatonic system adopted by their learned men, whose apex is occupied by a transcendental God named ''the Most- High'' or the ''Lord of the High Building'' by the famous manual of Magic ''Gayat al-Hakìm ''(''Picatrix''), but also in connection to popular devoutness, as it is shown by the cultic place of Sumatar Harabesi not distant from Harràn, where in the middle of the II c. C.E. the Moon-God ''Sìn ''at the head of the local pantheon was worshipped bearing the title of ''Marilahé ''(''Lord of the gods''), an Aramaic expression which, as some findings in Hatra and Palmyra allow one to understand, is an equivalent of the Greek name ''Theòs Hypsistos''.
  
Through our whole discussion a wide semantic field somehow connected to the Sabian question comes out, the general boundary-lines of which include words/concepts of different linguistic origin like “Greek(s), People(s), Nation(s), Stranger(s), Soldier(s), Servant(s)etc. Meanwhile, many expressions used to name God-Fearers have emerged, including words/concepts like Changing One’s Religion for Another, (Mid-)Conversion, To Adhere to the Prevailing Religion, Symphatizers, Worshippers etc. in connection with a divine figure such as the Most-High God sometimes conceived as the Heaven(s). On the other hand, a possible link of the Hebrew root ''SBA ''(“army, soldiers”, but also “religious service”) with Arabic ''Sàbi’ùn'' had been proposed a long time ago. As a result of all these pieces of evidence, we believe that the parallel Accadian lemma ''sàbu ''(“army, people, population etc.) might be a correct etymological solution for the word ''Sàbi’ùn'': the original noun would have undergone a linguistic evolution somewhat similar to that of the Hebrew ''ger''(which, from its primary social meaning of “stranger”, had ended up in the course of time denoting a social-religious figure such as a “proselyte”), by means of several linguistic intersections (Hebrew ''sabà'', ''shubh'', ''sabbàth'', ''Elizabeth ''etc.) the most important of which is no doubt represented by the Greek verbs/nouns ''sèbein'', ''sèbesthai'', ''oì sebòmenoi'', ''theosebeìs ''etc. whose technical sense is well known. Such a historical-religious process should have had a very reasonable issue, that is “Sabians” = ”People who leave their religion in order to worship One Most-High God”.
+
Through our whole discussion a wide semantic field somehow connected to the Sabian question comes out, the general boundary-lines of which include words/concepts of different linguistic origin like ''Greek(s), People(s), Nation(s), Stranger(s), Soldier(s), Servant(s)'' etc. Meanwhile, many expressions used to name God-Fearers have emerged, including words/concepts like Changing One’s Religion for Another, (Mid-)Conversion, To Adhere to the Prevailing Religion, Symphatizers, Worshippers etc. in connection with a divine figure such as the Most-High God sometimes conceived as the Heaven(s). On the other hand, a possible link of the Hebrew root ''SBA ''(''army, soldiers'', but also ''religious service'') with Arabic ''Sàbi’ùn'' had been proposed a long time ago. As a result of all these pieces of evidence, we believe that the parallel Accadian lemma ''sàbu ''(''army, people, population etc.'') might be a correct etymological solution for the word ''Sàbi’ùn'': the original noun would have undergone a linguistic evolution somewhat similar to that of the Hebrew ''ger''(which, from its primary social meaning of ''stranger'', had ended up in the course of time denoting a social-religious figure such as a ''proselyte''), by means of several linguistic intersections (Hebrew ''sabà'', ''shubh'', ''sabbàth'', ''Elizabeth ''etc.) the most important of which is no doubt represented by the Greek verbs/nouns ''sèbein'', ''sèbesthai'', ''oì sebòmenoi'', ''theosebeìs ''etc. whose technical sense is well known. Such a historical-religious process should have had a very reasonable issue, that is ''Sabians'' = ''People who leave their religion in order to worship One Most-High God''.
  
The difficulty for identifying correctly the former subject is that only very recently has the historical weight of God-Fearers been fully acknowledged by scholars: having to face a sort of a double unknown-quantity equation (some scholars have even doubted their existence!), one cannot fail to wonder why the right solution of the problem was not found for a such long time. This point is closely paralleled by the non-acknowledgement of a crucial religious frontier, on the border of a phenomenon which one can call “Pagan Monotheism”, namely the ever increasing spread of the ''Theòs Hypsistos’ ''cult and of a popular Monotheistic culture in Late Antiquity, realities that on the contrary have to be viewed as “the seed-bed into which Jewish and Christian theology could readily be planted. Without them the transformation of ancient patterns of belief … to … Judaism, Christianity and Islam might not have occurred at all”.
+
The difficulty for identifying correctly the former subject is that only very recently has the historical weight of God-Fearers been fully acknowledged by scholars: having to face a sort of a double unknown-quantity equation (some scholars have even doubted their existence!), one cannot fail to wonder why the right solution of the problem was not found for a such long time. This point is closely paralleled by the non-acknowledgement of a crucial religious frontier, on the border of a phenomenon which one can call ''Pagan Monotheism'', namely the ever increasing spread of the ''Theòs Hypsistos’ ''cult and of a popular Monotheistic culture in Late Antiquity, realities that on the contrary have to be viewed as ''the seed-bed into which Jewish and Christian theology could readily be planted. Without them the transformation of ancient patterns of belief … to … Judaism, Christianity and Islam might not have occurred at all''.
  
 
==Bibliography==
 
==Bibliography==

Revision as of 08:28, 6 May 2007

"God-Fearers: A Solution to the Ancient Problem of the Identity of the Sabians" reflects the research of Alberto Fratini and Carl Prato and contains their contributions on the Sabei and the Sabeismo.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tagwhere we presented a theory that nobody else had ever advanced: the substantial equivalence of the Sabians with the loose religious group of the God- Fearers [1](or, even better, God-Worshippers, i.e. devotees of the Most-High God [2]), whose importance and wide [3]diffusion geographically and chronologically is now accepted [4]. Almost twenty-five years ago (1977), the exceptional archaeological discovery in the site of the ancient city of Aphrodisia of a big stele [5], probably placed at the entrance of the local synagogue, mentioning the names of fifty-four pious God-fearers (òsioi theosebîs) beside those of sixty-nine Jews (plus three proselytes [6]) in their quality of donors [7], in fact, seemed finaally to have put an end to a fruitless discussion, which had been going on for no less than sixty years, about the existence of this group [8]. Unfortunately, the edition in Italian of our essay and the small number of libraries and scholars we could contact at that time limited its impact, in spite of the favourable impression it made upon the scholars who had the possibility to read the study.

This is one of the main reasons why we have decided to take up the subject again; the second, and more important one, is that we have gathered new and relevant pieces of information in support of our theory during recent last years, a circumstance that allows us not only to add further details to the picture already drawn in our previous study, but also to underline the extent to which the facts collected relate to one another with more accuracy and to point out better the weight of each one of them. Finally, we have paid more attention to the methodological aspects of the research, since we believe that the main cause of the unsuccessful results of the different authors who have been concerned with the Sabian enigma depends on methodological errors; in other words, we will show that there was a systematic fault in the scientific means of approaching the matter, especially concerning the etymological solutions to the problem of the meaning of the term Sabian, as well as how the historical value of textual evidence has been taken into account.

We think it is convenient to stress again the ever-lasting validity of the Principle of Economy: under the same conditions, it is better to choose a theory which in explaining the facts worth less exceptions; that is, the best theory is the simplest one.

The theory still most widely accepted, as we are going to consider now, is far from being the simplest one. Though many scholars have spent their energies to solve the Sabians’ mysteries [9], though no doubt the picture of the religious beliefs and practises of the Harranians (that is to say, the sole representatives of the people of the Sabians [10]whose historical existence has been proved with certainty) is now much better determined [11]than a hundred and fifty years ago, when Die Ssabier undder Ssabismus appeared in St. Petersburg, the leading ideas expressed by the Russian orientalist Daniel Chwolson in this monumental work [12]are still commonly accepted, in particular: 1) the difference between true Sabians (the Sabi’ùn quoted three times by Muhammad in the Qur’àn side by side with Jews and Christians, without adding any more information about them [13]) and false Sabians (normally identified with the inhabitants of Harràn, the Sumero-Babylonian Moon-God Sìn’s ancient cultic capital in Upper Mesopotamia, whose piety was still alive during the Middle Ages [14]; 2) the identification of true Sabians with the small baptismal group of Mandaeans who lived in Muhammad’s times (as they do now) in the marshy South- Mesopotamian region, and who were called sometimes by the nickname Subbi or Subba by their neighbours [15].

Chwolson’s style of arguing seems easy, and it can be synthesized as follows: since Muhammad could not include a pagan community in the People of the Book, to which Jews and Christians surely belonged, the Harranians cannot but lie when professing themselves Sabians (and in this sense the famous story of the meeting/dispute between Caliph al-Ma’mùn and the Harranians contained in al- Nadìm’s Fihrist chapter X plays a decisive role, as the perfect thing for this occasion [16]; on the other hand, if the Harranian people are not the Sabi’ùn mentioned in Suras II, V and XXII laconic verses, there is no doubt that the Prophet had somebody else in mind: but who are the members of this unknown monotheistic community? The phonetic likeness Subbi-Sàbi’ùn provides Chwolson with the answer he wishes [17].

But this solution is only apparently easy: it requires both a falsehood on the part of the Harranians who wanted to defend at any cost their ancient religious traditions, and an interested misunderstanding by the Islamic authorities who were welldisposed to turn a blind eye on a pagan community à outrance in exchange for money (the well-known leit-motiv of the Near-Eastern peoples’ innate corruption); moreover, it lets a very small religious group grow up in Muhammad’s mind until it becomes a Universal Religion like Christianity and Judaism, as it requires a rather free use of the rules of Etymology (and it is not surprising that very soon the latter point in Chwolson’s thesis was bitterly criticized). This is why we say that Chwolson fails not only in working out the simplest theory, but just a simple one, unless one uses the word as a fable, rather than as something worthy to the word Science. It goes without saying that if all the pieces of evidence in the new pattern which we are going to provide were demonstrated [18]beyond any doubt, we would not have spent so many words arguing and criticizing a book written a hundred an fifty years ago, even if – as we have already said – its theoretical issues are those which are to be found in most encyclopaedias and dictionaries. But we believe that all means are valid to show how much the opening of an alternative horizon on the Sabian problem is needed: it will lead the scholars’ efforts in a direction that might have been totally ignored, without the material collected here. In other words, we hope that, with the help of our suggestions, new evidence will come to light, strengthening our arguments’ validity.

The Etymological Model

It is impossible to be grateful enough to the Italian scholar Giovanni Semerano for the work which he has carried out throughout his life (he is now ninety-two years old!) in the field of Etymology. In fact, nobody before him, had proved in the same degree the unbelievable conservative power of language and the practical consequences of this fact on a historical level. For those who do not yet know this learned man or the struggles he had to fight to make his revolutionary position known, we need only to quote his main work, Le origini della cultura europea [19](TheOrigins of the European culture) and the more recent book L’infinito: un equivocomillenario [20](Infinity: a millenary mistake), which another Italian scholar, the philosopher Emanuele Severino, once called una festa dell’intelligenza. Why such a title? And why should it represent a feast of the intelligence? [21]Because Semerano for the first time sweeps away an old idea, which he defines in terms of Indoeuropean Mirage [22], implying that the linguistic roots of Italian, in particular, and those of other European languages, more generally, for the most part go back to old Greek or to Latin (more remotely, to Sanscrit as well). The issues linked to such a wrong use of Etymology’s rules were often quite funny: let us recall here only the once common etymological explanation of the word Italia, which the Indoeuropean Mirage went as far as connecting to the Latin term vitulus, obtaining consequently the curious result: Italia = Terra dei Vitelli (the Calves’ Country)! [23]

Against such miracles of ingenuity, in virtue of which everything becomes possible, Semerano rightly raised the plain objection that the initial i in the word Italia is long, whereas in the word vitulus it is short [24]; this briefly means that in the first case the vowel i belongs to the word’s root, while in the second one it does not: nothing else is necessary to demonstrate that such an inference is wrong, and with it thousands and thousands of others. It is now easy to understand why Semerano felt the need to reconsider during his long and not always happy life [25] roughly twenty-five thousands words [26], both common nouns and proper names, in old Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, German, English, Slavic, together with their alleged original Indoeuropean roots systematically collected by classical linguists. Thus to a great extent, he took on the task of rewriting Europe’s linguistic history, an activity which coincided eventually with rewriting the history of the European culture itself: a huge task, indeed!

As we are writing these pages, we realize that it is the 27th of January, a date which Italy and other European countries, plus Israel and the U.S.A., decided a few years ago to celebrate as a Memorial Day, in order to show to the new generations the atrocities of the Holocaust – the Shoah – during the past Second World War, so that nobody ever forgets Nazi-Fascist barbarity and, above all, so that such horror should never repeat itself in the course of human history. The present reference to anti-Semitism is not casual. In fact what Semerano calls the Indoeuropean Mirage saw the light just at the beginning of XIX century together with the birth of Comparative Linguistics, but it owed its existence to something that had nothing to do with a scientific and neutral interest in ancient languages: it was a floating mine, it was racism [27]. The proud sense of their own superiority over Semitic populations expressed by the Germans and other European peoples started from an unconscious hate that slowly transformed itself into an open will of destruction; and it was just the same absurd spirit of self-excellence that invented the legend of the beautiful and terrible Indo-European race, coming from the deep Asian steppes, riding on their fast wild horses, whose assigned destiny was the conquest of the world. We have been searching everywhere - Semerano says - but, in spite of our sincere efforts, we have found no trace of the Indoeuropeans at all [28]. Nor of their imaginary language, of course.

Though such a primary language never existed on the face of earth, it had a very big influence – as everybody knows - on a cultural level anyway. Its most important effect in the field of the human sciences was the construction of a strong high wall between the Aryans and most of the Near Eastern peoples settled along approximately the same natural border-line, the Euphrates river, which in Imperial times divided the Roman State from Persia so that nobody was able to cross it nor to look beyond it any longer. The Europeans preferred to be blind rather than to recognise any sort of kinship with their Semitic neighbours. We have already stressed the consequences of such an attitude in connection to the term Italia: it is better to be akin to calves than to Arabs and Jews!

Putting aside humour, the scandal of the long silences that the reader so often meets when opening any old Greek or Latin etymological dictionary (with such laconic expressions as etymology: unknown, ignorée, inconnue, unbekannt)[29] was real, but no scholar ever wondered or raised objections in front of the vacuum: in spite of such a great distance in terms of space and time, it was to the ancient Indian civilization that linguists should continue to present their questions; if Sanscrit does not answer, the answer does not exist at all [30]. And yet just one step across a much closer border was needed to fill a lot of those empty spaces: but who would be courageous and fearless enough to do it?

Beyond such a thin and hard to cross borderline, in fact, a very rich treasure lies: the Accadian lexicon [31]. There, in the interiors of such a golden mine available to linguists at least since the middle of the XIX century [32], even the right meaning of the noun Italia was hidden together with a host of other ones, so that it was not difficult at this point to connect the Italian term with the Accadian lemma attalu = occident, west, sunset, coming thus to the entirely intelligible result Italia = Country of the West[33]. We have already said it: solutions must be easy or they are not real ones. What did the old Greeks have in mind when naming the Italian peninsula Esperia, but the country of the west? On the other hand, the initial letter of the Accadian word perfectly agrees with first i of the Italian noun by quantity: thus the present solution is satisfying not only from a logical point of view, since it allows us to throw away a meaningless definition in exchange of a meaningful one, but also from the structural requirements of Phonetics, just as it should be.

In the Near Eastern Antiquity, Accadian was the first international writing normally in use, because it was the language that was used for royal chancellery acts and all other sorts of documents during almost fifteen hundred years. That is the main reason why Accadian has to be chosen instead of Sanscrit: the former was widely spread many centuries before the latter came into existence. One should reverse the way followed by classical scholars until now: when an old Greek or a Latin root seems to go back to the Indian milieu, these are just surface impressions or, even better, mirror effects; when such a case does happen, in fact, the Sanscrit root goes systematically back in its turn to an Accadian antecedent, common to both European classical languages and to Indian ones [34].

The finding of a new original framework to be applied in etymological research represents a real Copernican revolution [35]not only in the field of Linguistics: it implies also an alternative historical model for the development of the Near East ancient civilizations and for their mutual relationships, in other words a new idea regarding the progress of mankind and its main starting points. As the entirely unexpected discovery of Ebla by Italian archaeologists had already shown at the end of the sixties and even more in the next decades, by stressing the absolute importance of this part of the Ancient World, one of the most significant cultural engines in the course of human history lay geographically in the Syro-Mesopotamian area: the art of writing, namely the most commonly accepted reference-mark for the beginning of the historical age, flourished in that region when men were still wandering partially in shadows along the Nile and Indo river valleys [36].

In the next pages we will perform an operation which not even our courageous and fearless professor Semerano, notwithstanding his sincere passion for the truth, managed, since such a thing was outside his own range of activities. If, as Semerano has proved with certainty, the incredible enduring power of Accadian forms has to be recognized in the European classical languages as well as into modern ones, there is no reason for not supposing that a similar phenomenon had happened in the Near Eastern linguistic sphere. In reality, the influence of Accadian on the languages of the Semitic branch is among the facts more commonly accepted by scholars, as orientalists have recognized from a long time similar inter-linguistic relations, both from a diachronic and synchronic point of view: but much work must still be done in this sense and, as it is evident that the European cultural context requires it, many past errors must be corrected in this field of research too. What failed to be understood up to now, in fact, is the full importance of the central role of the Accadian language, so that it appears to be the primary pattern which one should make reference to when, as general rule, etymological problems are at stake. We shall try to show, therefore, how strong the conservative power of the Accadian linguistic bulk had been even in reference to the problem which we are concerned with, the Sabians: obviously, it is a matter of Etymology, but we believe that our etymological solution is worthy of interest, by comparing it to the other ones which were proposed till now, for the simple reason that it is not an abstract hypothesis, good for some scholarly minds, as those were; on the contrary, it stands on solid theoretical grounds, because it agrees not only with phonetic general rules, but also with the historical developments of religions since Antiquity up to the Middle Ages throughout the Near Eastern area. Last but not least, our theory also fulfils the duties involved by the already quoted Principle of Economy: for the first time, it makes a clean sweep of the artificial difference true Sabians - false Sabians in a satisfactory way, namely without resorting – as J. Pedersen in the twenties (and J. Hjarpe who followed his opinion more recently) did – to the concept of Gnosis [37]. It is true, in fact, that Pedersen’s solution gets over Chwolson’s incongruities by finding a single name for the subject implied by Muhammad’s words and by the religious-historical framework to come, with the well known difficulties of according several self-styled or alleged Sabian communities to the Koran’s enigmatic group; however the idea of rendering in both cases the Sabians equal to Gnostics does not explain anything, because concepts like Gnosis and Gnosticism are in everybody’s opinion so hazy and loose that they can never help to solve a problem of identity, mostly when the problem in question is represented by such a complex phenomenon as Sabianism.

The Origins of the Name

We should repeat here what we wrote in our previous study. By observing the uncertainty and the hesitations that ancient Koranic commentators and Islamic traditionists - but also Muslim Middle Ages’ historians, geographers, heresiologists etc. - show when the subject Sabians comes into play, it is difficult not to have the impression of dealing with a non-Arabic word. In fact there is no mutual consent among all these learned men about the true meaning of the word and its linguistic root, neither about the right way of writing and pronouncing it: so, one may usually find beside the Arabic plural written form Sàbi’ùn, the collective forms Sàbi’a and Sàba; in the meantime, according to one of the most famous ancient mufassirùn, al- Zamakhsharì, Koranic sayers would have frequently pronounced the word al-Sàbùn, without hamza [38]. Those are just a handful of examples, but we believe that they are sufficient to grasp the linguistic conditions of the problem. Confusion increases, besides, when one thinks over the existence of two different, though very closely inter-related Arabic roots, SB’ and SBW, and consequently of two corresponding verbal forms, saba’a and sabà, from which the name Sàbi (sing.)/Sàbi’ùn (plur.) is generally supposed to derive [39]. We hope that our I Sebòmenoi have explained the various semantic values of these verbs [40]clearly enough, and we find it unnecessary, therefore, to look back to the historical reasons that probably gave birth to such different meanings once again.

No doubt, the fact that the word does appear for the first time within the Qur’àn cannot prove anything about its own origins, because it is not by evidence of this kind that one may know whether the noun belongs or not to the Arabic linguistic tradition: as the latest research has shown with more and more certainty, poetry writings which traditionally were considered to be of pure Arabic production, because of their composition going back to the so-called Ayyàm al-Arab, belong on the contrary to the Muslim age and are not able, therefore, to give a real portrait of the life of those legendary days, nor to inform us about the language really spoken in such a distant past [41]. So, when one does not find the verbs saba’a/sabà nor the name(s) Sàbi/Sàbi’ùn (Sàbi’a etc.) among the lyrical words used by the poets of the Ayyàmal-Arab, it does not mean that this group of terms is really old, since the Qur’àn – as, on the other hand, it never ceased of being considered such in the Muslim world – is the pure Arabic linguistic prototype [42].

Likewise, we are not helped by the textual evidence contained within several hadith and sìra’s writings [43], which J. Wellhausen already collected and commented on for the most part one century ago [44]: the fact that the verb saba’a and the noun Sàbi [45](the latter being used always in its singular form [46]) are applied in these texts in reference to Muhammad and to the earlier members of the Muslim community [47]does not imply that such words were of common use in Muhammad’s times or before him by the Arabic speakers. Consequently, D.S. Margoliouth seems to be right when expressing the opinion that 'saba’a, ‘he changed his religion’, … appears to be an inference from the application of the name to Muhammad and his followers [48]. In absence of other elements, it is surely more correct to follow this way of reasoning, and thus to think that – at least in relation to one (but a very important one, as we shall see) of the semantic values of the root SB’ – one has to do with a vicious circle. The reason why the Arabic verb saba’a could be applied to Islam’s first proselytes and to the Prophet who was announcing Allah and His Holy Word to mankind would not be that its meaning was to change religion or to be converted at those early times already; on the contrary, the verbal form would have been forced to include also that special meaning later on, only because all these people – and Muhammad with them - were usually described by their Meccan opponents by an epithet like Sabians [49].

The Hebrew Root SHUBH=

Actually such an opinion, to which we subscribed without reserve in our previous study, could only be half a truth. There exists in fact the Hebrew root SHUBH which is very interesting for our purposes, even if nobody – as far as we know – ever recognised any inter-linguistic relation between it and the two Arabic roots which we are dealing with. W.L. Holladay, for example, when surveying in chapter I of his Theroot SHUBH in the Old Testament, various instances of the root in cognate languages, records the verb tawaba which occurs in classical Arabic in a great variety of meanings, some of them paralleling Hebrew usage. According to Lane’s Lexicon [50]the verb in the first form has the meaning ‘he returned to a place to which he had come before’, exactly the central meaning which we shall assign to shùbh'; then, after having remembered two further uses of the verb in the IV form (causative) and in the X form (reflexive), he reckons among the less assured proposals a Jacob Barth’s suggestion, according to which the adjectives sobhàbh, sobhèbh ‘disloyal, faithless’, and the noun meshùbhà ‘faithlessness’, are to be distinguished from the Semitic root twb, and to be rather connected with the Arabic root s’b=syb, ‘free, untrammeled’ [51].

All this is rather strange, all the more so as the root SHUBH has been studied at length by scholars, who have analysed the abundant occurrence of the related verbs, nouns and adjectives through Old Testament texts, in order to deepen, in particular, the conception of apostasy and repentance in ancient Hebraic society [52]. Now, it is true that SHUBH and SB’/SBW diverge for many aspects and so can be only in part paralleled, but their convergence is all the more striking at least for one essential point: both roots show a characteristic ambiguity when expressing the relation between Man and God, an ambiguity which should be seen – we believe - as a consequence of the historical difficulties of focusing the idea of religious Conversion.

In other words, both roots which - it is worth stating here – include into their semantic field some basic meanings of physical motion without further implication, such as to return, to revert (in ownership), to change into (Hebrew) and to incline, to be inclined, to tend, to lean (Arabic), show in reference to religious meanings, also included by full right into their semantic field, a never-ending oscillation, a dialectics Good-Evil being destined to never stop, which reveals itself to be essentially the same in both cases. If, then, the Hebrew root may express the idea of going away from God, sc. of apostasy, and also at the same time that one of return to God, sc. of repentance, the Arabic root on the other side does not cease to hesitate between the idea of inclining in the wrong direction (far from God), sc. of apostasy, and that one of inclining in the right direction (towards God), sc. of conversion, even if the latter semantic value seems to fade in the background in comparison with the former one according to lexicographers and other interpreters [53].

To dwell upon the reason why the semantic nuance of conversion replaced in Arabic the semantic nuance of repentance expressed by the Hebrew root would seem at first sight a waste of time, but we don’t find it completely useless to spend some words upon that aspect anyway. Arabians, or rather Muslims, did not get the One True God from the beginning, and had to wait for thousands of years for Muhammad’s prophecy and the chance to turn themselves to God by renouncing their old idols. It was the historical event of Allah’s Revelation by the Prophet that rendered the idea of Conversion completely real. Indeed, even before the beginning of the Muslim era, it was possible for any Arab to convert himself. But to What? To Whom? There were persons among the Arabs converted to Christianity or to Judaism, of course, namely Christian and Jewish Arabian communities whose importance was sometimes far from meagre mostly since the fifth century C.E. onwards [54], but it was a minority phenomenon, chiefly in relation to central Arabia’s desert regions [55], and in any case it lacked time to influence the lexicon of classical Arabic [56]. The main problem for the Jews, on the contrary, was always to go astray, to forget the Law of God and to fall down into idolatry; the plain word Conversion, which everybody takes for granted nowadays, meant nothing for them, since they were the elect and thus they could risk losing God only because of their sins. There was no need to look for Him, He was standing beside them, with them, since [57]the Covenant between Him and Abraham had been made once for all: that is why the Hebrew root expresses the idea of going away and coming back to the departure point [58], rather than that one of turning oneself towards a certain direction.

As we shall observe, the situation changes when Jews come in close contact with other peoples, that is when Proselytism begins to grow till it becomes a socially significant phenomenon both in Palestine and throughout the Diaspora communities [59]. But in order to name these men and women, whose number increased as time passed, who heard the call of Yahwè and who felt the need of crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew [60]or of taking part of groups devoted to the Hebraic religion following some of its many precepts [61], there generally existed other technical terms, or rather terms which gained over the course of centuries an unambiguous sense [62].

Conversion

Actually, the general idea of Conversion had a significant historical development, and thus in the first period of the Christian era it was just at its very beginning, though the process had started centuries before and was to progress for many centuries. It is not possible to discuss here the history of the concept of Conversion, nor to follow the very slow evolution of the spiritual sense in the human societies of the ancient world. We must limit ourselves to look at some of Greek verbs/nouns most usually employed – beyond the term already noted – to translate the event in question, such as epistréphein/epistrophé and metanoéin/metànoia [63], or to look at the parallel words in Hebrew when the texts to analyze are for example the Old Testament writings [64], to realize how long and tortuous was the way leading to a full consciousness of that phenomenon: there came into light a special kind of religious feeling, a psychological event wholly different from any other one, and a subsequent chain of actions addressed towards a well determined goal, which needed only a single word in order to be clearly denoted. But where were the difficulties? What was so difficult to understand and to say by using just one word? To tell the truth, speaking of such a theme brings about a huge problem, and this may explain why, also in modern times, very few scholars feel like taking into consideration this subject: A.D. Nock’s Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustineof Hippo [65]is an absolute exception on a bibliographical level, mostly because as he himself states: This process of attraction has in the main been studied from the Christian point of view. What I have here tried to do is to look at it from the outside, and to that end I have devoted a substantial part of this book to a presentation of the advance in this same world of other forms of religion, many of them eastern in origins, and of other ways of life which also won adherents. Nock [66]stresses just from the outset a conceptual distinction, namely between the psychological process of Conversion and a less binding condition of getting spiritually involved such as Adhesion to a new religious cult and/or to new deities generally imported into one’s country from the outside by invaders [67]. Nevertheless, if the distinction is surely important for focusing on what happens in a man’s soul when he has to make with this sort of spiritual – and often practical too - choices, it is much less significant from an historical point of view.

In the latter sense, what really counts a lot is another factor, that is the deep transformational process which a society undergoes when it is invested by a strong religious stream, by a high spiritual fever. It is not accidental that some scholars have presented the religious groups which are at the centre of our attention under alternative names such as Sympathizers [68]or just as Adherents [69], instead of the usual God-Fearers (Phoboùmenoi tòn Theòn, Metuentes Deum) and/or God- Worshippers (Sebòmenoi tòn Theòn/Theosebéis, Colentes Deum) [70]: these names seem to correspond better to historical facts, since the people in question often did not change very much their way of life and their habits, limiting themselves to being present at the synagogue’s rites in quality of simple attendants and to obeying to some precepts of Judaism that generally enjoyed a large sympathy among pagans, for instance Sabbath’s observance with candles and oil lamps’ lighting during Friday night or abstention from pork [71].

So, what is really the crucial factor for the historical development of religious ideas, and therefore for the human history itself, is not the more or less spiritual selfinvolving of individuals in a new faith or in new religious beliefs; it is the radical change of the religious horizon during the period included – we may follow here Nock’s chronological model – from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo. It is a space of time much longer than half a millennium, but it is difficult to consider a shorter one for examining what happened in men’s souls and in their sensibility in respect to the role which religion had for human destiny [72].

Pagan Monotheism

Unfortunately, it is only very recently that people have begun to be conscious not only that a complex social-religious movement specially devoted to One Most-High God historically existed and was profoundly and widely diffused in the alleged Pagan World (into European, Near Eastern, North African regions included in the Roman Empire, and even beyond it), but also that this event eventually made it possibile to speak about a phenomenon such as Pagan Monotheism [73]. Thirty years ago, in fact, and even less, probably such an expression would have been seen just as a blasphemy: the concept of Henotheism was the maximum that people were generally disposed to admit in reference to the Pagans’ horizon of thought [74]; the conceptual space of Monotheism was – apologies for the pun – a monopoly of the Revealed Great Religions, a sort of private property of Judaism and Christianity.

But the new framework of Late Antiquity’s pagan piety which begins step by step to be drawn in the last years weakens to a certain extent the traditional boundary line between Revealed, or Prophetic, Religions and Pagan Religions [75], because - as the latest research makes more and more clear – what one thought to be still in existence during the first centuries of the Christian Era plainly did not exist any longer. It is of secondary importance to know which Supernatural Beings people believed in, which new, or old, deities they were devoted to, as well as which kind of hopes and expectations they placed in them: what deeply changed was people’s attitude of mind towards Religion in general, not only in the sense that, after a certain historical period, people began to seek into Religion an answer to their fears, a solution to their problems about death, a virtual salvation (soterìa)[76]to their souls.

Everybody knows, for instance, that since the second century C.E. a new faith in Oriental cults (Cybele, Isis, Mithra, Mèn, Sabazios, Dyonisos etc.) [77]spread in the Roman Empire for the same reasons that previously had gained followers to Greek Mysteric Religions, Orphism and Eleusynian Mysteries [78], namely the novice’s hope to obtain his own soul’s salvation after having successfully passed the initiation rites by rule and after having consequently entered to be part by full right of some community of Elects. Indeed, it is not such a thing which we mean by saying change of people’s attitude of mind, and therefore perhaps an example is needed to explain better what we wish to express.

The Pious Roman Emperors

In her bestseller Hadrian’s Memoirs the French writer Marguerite Yourcenar too, according to a historically well-consolidated opinion, lets the old-aged emperor’s choice for his successor to the imperial see finally fall on a certain senator Antoninus, whose greatest care in respect of the old weary father (who was often present with him at the Senate’s assemblies) had brought him the nickname Pious: for Hadrian this detail seemed sufficient to consider him a trustworthy person [79]. The anecdote was always so successful that nobody ever doubted about its truthfulness, and there would be no problem. The problem arises, nevertheless, when one realizes that, unlike what happens in explaining in such a simple way the alleged origin of Antoninus’ nickname, no reason is given to explain why Roman emperors after him continued for many centuries to be named in the same way – i.e. continued to display, as Roman Imperial coinage shows at great length, beside their own proper names and the traditional epithet Augustus (Sebastòs in Roman Empire’s Greek coinage) [80]a further and meaningful one such as Pius (Eusebés) [81].

What has happened since that time? Why had Roman Emperors to declare openly their religious feelings, to exhibit publicly their strict religious observance? It is noteworthy that this usage did not cease with the end of the period of the so-called Foster-Emperors [82]whose human qualities for lack of any degree of kinship between them (that is in absence of any family’s dynastic line) had to be first of all wisdom, justice and courage; it is not possible, in other words, to find any special link between the beginnings of such displayed devoutness by Roman Emperors and the human qualities which they had to possess in order to be considered worthy of succeeding to the throne, as if this devoutness was just another way of naming Philosophy, a discipline which Marcus Aurelius was the best entitled among the Caesars to entrust the government of the State to [83].

But even more striking is the choice of the word itself, pius/eusebés, when one reflects over the well-known circumstance that the term pietas in Latin, just like eusébeia in Greek, is quite a hazy synonymous of our Religion [84]: the idea of pietas/ eusébeia, in fact, had previously so much to do with civic affairs and municipal duties [85]that there were dignities of the state, magistracies, just having the assignment of bearing the religious service; on the contrary, it had very little to do with spiritual feelings. When Antoninus together with his successors publicly states to be Pious, therefore, he is not simply admitting to be the Pontifex Maximus as already Octavian did one century and half before, collecting for the first time in the history of Rome into the hands of only one person – the Princeps - the political and the religious power [86]: we can be sure of that. It would seem that the Jews, whose struggles for independence came to a final end just under Antoninus’ principality owing to their defeat during the Second Judaic War [87](in consequence of which the tolerant position of the Roman government towards the Jews - which was not seldom something more than that, namely a political position in open support of them [88]- so deeply changed that new laws started to be put into force all over the Roman Empire forbidding circumcision for converted Jews under penalty of death [89]: an event which historically stopped, or radically restrained anyway, the process of Judaic Proselytism) [90], after having lost the match on the battle-field, took their revenge on a cultural level, forcing the Romans to put aside their traditional religious tolerance towards subjected peoples, and almost to compete with them in religious affairs [91].

A puzzling document of the spiritual trend in action since the beginnings of our Era onwards throughout the Roman Empire is a curious apocryphal correspondence usually titled Antoninus and the Rabbi [92]. Both characters are not better defined by the anonymous author of the text, dating back to the III c. C.E., and belonging apparently to the Palestinian Jewry’s doctrinal milieu. But the interest which it represents for the scholar is unquestionable beyond any philological observation. It provides in fact further proof of a moral and intellectual landscape where the influence of the most relevant feature of Jewish culture, the faith in One (Most-High) God, is spreading around with more and more strength [93]till it arrives, as we have said, to be (quasi-) universally acknowledged in terms of something different from a strictly religious sign: it has already gained the status of the civilized man’s typical reference-mark [94], without which no highly-developed culture might blossom. Here, long before Costantine’s Conversion to Christianity [95], the Roman Emperor is seen as being ready to embrace Monotheism, to which doctrine therefore the Jewish traditionist, the Rabbi, gradually educates him by sweeping away his natural uncertainties and making him finally convinced [96].

The Cult of the Most-High God: Titles and Onomastics

To be a valorous military commander is no longer enough to be Imperator, Princeps, Dux; in other words, the Emperor cannot possess the moral qualities necessary for being a good chief, courage, justice and wisdom, without proving that he is at the same time a religious man. If the Roman Emperors of the Golden Age and later on took upon themselves the responsibility of Religion in such a striking way, that could not happen outside of the predominantly spiritual horizon of the period. The popular idea of Religion changes, or rather it has changed already.

The borderline between eusebés/eusebèia and theosebés/theosebèia is not as sharp as it seems [97]. It is true that the group of the first nouns usually refers to pagan piety, while the second one is ascribed to people who were maturing in themselves the idea of and the consequent devotion to One Supreme Deity, who, to sum up, were spiritually close to a Monotheistic conception [98]. But it is just the historical development of the events that reduces such differences. As long as the idea of One Supreme Deity was entirely monopolized by the Jews, a massive boundary-line between their religious views and the other ones was fully justifiable: only Sympathizers or Adherents to Judaism – in addition to native Jews and Proselytes, of course - had the right to bear such a honourable title as theosebés [99]. But with the rise of Christianity the religious universal pattern begins to move, and variable factors come into play which were not foreseen or foreseeable by anybody: it is not by chance, for example, that just the epithets eusebés and theosebés (often in a superlative form) in the fifth century C.E. have become a sort of honourable title traditionally borne by Christian bishops or Christian pious men [100], while at the beginnings of the Christian Era (I-III cc.) one almost always finds it in Judaic contexts, even if nobody could be very sure of such Judaizers’ sincere piety, and know with certainty whether their spiritual approach to Judaism was due to a real sympathy towards that exotic religion as a whole, or towards a single aspect of it, as it often appears to have been the faith in One Most-High God.

An evident indication of this kind of spiritual attitude comes from the field of Onomastics: the growing use of names such as Theoctistes, Theodorus, Theodoulos by individuals who choose to give to their sons similar names is a clear testimony of that. As Stephen Mitchell rightly stressed, in fact, the prefix theo- should not be understood in a loose sense as referring to any god, but precisely to the highest, the one and only god, whom they revered [101]. But even more relevant for our purposes is a complementary chain of proper names, whose semantic bulk is represented by the concept of piety, and whose rendering in Greek is therefore seized by the words eusèbeia/(theo)sébeia. We have to do with a linguistic reality which we believe to be quite unparalleled throughout the whole history of Onomastics, because there exists a real host – for sure no less than one hundred! - of these names: we limit ourselves to citing just the beginning of this never-ending chain, to suggest the dimensions that such a social-religious phenomenon took, specially in imperial times: Sàbaos, Sàbos,Sàbbos, Sàbeos, Sàbbeos, Sabbéos, Sabiàn, Sabia, Sabaò, Sabà, Sàbeis, Sàbbeis,Sàbis, Saìbéos, Sabbé, Sabe, Sabés, Sabé, Sabès, Sabaìos, Sabbaìos [102]. If, moreover, one considers that each noun could be connected with several prefixes such as theo- and eu- [103], and that the place of the first letter, sigma, could be occupied by a zeta or even by a tau-zeta [104](which Greek letters are a common alphabetical transcription of the Semitic alphabets’ emphatic sibilant) [105], one can easily imagine how huge the number of the possible compounds might be!

The problem is that sometimes the true nature of these names is, in our opinion, misunderstood by scholars as a consequence of the … Indoeuropean Mirage once again! A brief survey of Greco-Syrian epigraphic findings is enough to become aware of that: here, in fact, very often the proper name Sàbaos recurs which, according to the scientific dominant opinion, should be the written rendering in Greek of the Arabian name Sabah (hypokoristikon Shubayh) [106]. Against such a linguistic correspondence, two important factors play a crucial role yet: 1) a very meagre presence, indeed, of the name Sabah throughout the Corpus InscriptionumSemiticarum [107], which by no means justifies a similar host of these names in Greco- Syrian epigraphy; 2) the interpretation of the name given by different scholars, who do not agree with each other and who consequently make one think that the alleged correspondence Sàbaos-Sabah is real only in a small number of cases [108].

To sum up, we believe that Sàbaos (and most of the names with similar spellings in Greek writing) is nothing else than one of the several forms of the common Hebrew anthroponim Sambathios ('Sabbath observant), to which subject Tchrikower dedicated a classical study [109]: both the hypokoristikon Sabbàs, Sambàs, already recorded by Tchrikower [110], and the Hebraic expression Shabbos goy, pointing at the stranger able to carry out the activities forbidden to Jews in days of rest [111], seem to prove it sufficiently. It is worth remembering that to give to one’s sons such names shaped by the noun Sabbath was fashionable among the Pagans who – as for example Juvenal’s famous father metuens sabbata [112]– sympathized with Judaism, since that was a very impressive aspect for popular imagination [113]. But in the meantime we cannot rule out that a linguistic intersection of these names with those linked with the (theo)sèbeia’s idea, as well as with those other words phonetically close to it which we have observed, had often taken place.

Eusèbeia and Gnòsis

It is difficult to say how much the historical phenomenon of the rise of Christianity contributed to the new popular idea of Religion which becomes stronger and stronger as time passes by [114]. Surely for a certain period it increased the confusion, and not only because of the difficulties in distinguishing between Jews and Christians, and thus to recognize Christianity as an autonomous cult by the Roman government and, more in general, by the others [115]. Actually, as S. Mitchell opportunely pointed out, the cult of Theòs Hypsistos and the monotheistic conceptions of a wide-spread and popular religious culture were the seed-beds into which Jewish and Christian theology could readily be planted. Without them, the transformation of ancient patterns of belief from pagan polytheism to the predominantly monotheistic systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would not only have been far less tidy and unidirectional than it was, it might not have occurred at all [116].

That is one of the reasons why, in our opinion, the concept of Henotheism needs today to be considered old-fashioned and out-of-date. It counts for little that the Highest God rules by Himself or with the help of more or less numerous subordinate deities. Piety occupies now a space much larger than before, namely the moral-ethical one; it has become a sort of intellectual affair, a quality whose absence looks like being in open conflict with the concept of evolved civilization in itself. As was to happen in the Islamic world, when Greek philosophy and, more generally, Hellenic culture began to be known and loved by Muslims, for many of whom it was inconceivable that Plato or Aristotle had worked out their doctrines about the Supreme Good or the Primal Cause without being Monotheists [117], in the Roman world too a Monotheistic trend quite rapidly became the common habit of mind of every educated person. So, if Cicero might still state … cognitionem deorum, e quaoritur pietas, thus maintaining in the foreground the idea of the plurality of gods [118], Seneca had made a crucial and irreversible step forwards by writing a sentence such as Deum colit qui novit [119]. But here, there is also something more than that: one recognizes in fact that a strong link between Religion and Knowledge, Eusèbeia and Gnosis [120]has come already into existence, a circumstance which bears witness to what we were saying about the cultural framework gaining ground since the II century onwards into Late Antiquity.

Usually, the connection between these two faculties, by stressing mostly the second one, is seen as a distinguishing mark of Hermetism: one finds in the CorpusHermeticum a sentence stating that Piety is the Knowledge of God [121], or very similar ones. The reason is clear: knowledge is no longer the mind’s contemplation of eternal truths; it has become action, technical operation, and therefore it cannot but invest the sphere of Holiness, because it must force all the powers of Nature and Darkness – the will of gods, angels and demons - in order to fulfil what one desires. But establishing such a link had happened long before entering into the Hermetists’ program [122], since for many people it was already a fact of common sense.

That is not to claim that people did not try to defend the originality and the uniqueness of their own religious position: M. Simon for instance had rightly stressed how careful Western Christianity was in selecting the Latin divine attribute for naming the Supreme Height of God in its liturgy. Christians, in fact, were perfectly aware of the danger that their God might be confused with other Highest Deities, and so they paid special attention to that, by wavering for a long time between epithets such as Summus, Altissimus, Exuperantissimus [123]etc. in order to make a lexical choice able to state God’s absolute transcendence without being at the meantime ambiguous for the believers [124]. Indeed Christianity, as we shall see better later on, did run a risk of confusion with other religious groups whose principal feature was the common faith in One Most-High Deity, even if such a phenomenon was probably limited to certain geographical areas and to certain historical periods [125]. Here, we wish to record just one example in this sense, because of its connections with our main theme which – as far as we know – nobody till now had ever noticed.

Vincentius’ tomb

Vincentius’ tomb in Rome has been studied at length by archaeologists since its discovery in 1856 in the site of Praetextatus’ Catacombs [126]: we are dealing with a funerary chamber housing the graves of Vincentius and his wife Vibia, whose walls are painted with frescos illustrating Vibia’s journey down to the Underworld. From the first, the place of the tomb created a big problem: though its owner was undoubtly a Sabazios priest, it shares its space with a Christian cemetery, so that it seems to be a part of such a funerary complex [127]. One of the most diligent scholars who searched into the real nature of the monument, the Italian archaeologist Father Guarducci, engaged himself in defending at any cost the exact localization where, according to him, the tomb should have been, by arguing that, in spite of all appearances, it lay certainly outside the Christian complex [128]. We do not follow Guarducci in his learned and complicated analysis of the underground labyrinth of this cemetery, since we are not interested in knowing whether he is right or not [129], even if it seems to us that his arguments leave much to be desired anyway [130]. What is really interesting, we believe, is that discussions about such a problem should have arisen, because such a fact itself demonstrates that an ambiguity historically exists.

Without paying undue attention to some religious connections made in a syncretistic key by Cumont long time ago (1897) [131], for which he was bitterly criticized [132], we may remember here what the great scholar wrote, taking as a starting point the famous text of the Latin historian Valerius Maximus about the Jews’ expulsion from Rome by praetor Cornelius Hispalus in 139 B.C.E. (Iudaeos, quiSabazi Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores conati erant, repetere domos suascoegit) [133]: La mention étrange du Jupiter Sabazius dans ce texte a généralement été expliquée par une confusion avec le Iahvé Zebaoth, le Dieu des armées, de la Bible. Cette confusion, fondée sur une assonance fortuite, parait certaine, mais elle n’est pas due, comme on semble le croire, à une simple erreur des Romains. Dans les Symposiakà problèmata de Plutarque, un des convives démontre doctement que le Dieu des Juives n’est autre que Dyonisos-Sabazios. Tacite connait aussi cette assimilation et croit devoir expressément la repousser. Enfin Jean Lydus, dans un passage où il résume sans doute Cornélius Labéon, nous affirme que Dyonisos, Sabazios et Sabaòth sont des synonymes [134].

In order to give an answer to some fundamental questions about the Sabians, including the correct etymology of the name itself, assonance is in fact not less important than real linguistic relationships, because it counts for much what people sought to recognize in certain words, mostly when they were of foreign origin [135]. Also, then, a wrong etymology such as that reckoned by some classical scholar in relation to the names of two ancient Italic populations such as the Sabini and the Sabelli - the alleged root of which should be, according to them, the Greek participial form that we already know (oi) sebòmenoi [136], and whose true roots are, on the contrary, once again Accadian ones meaning respectively people in close proximity, in the neighbourhoods (sàb-in-itì) and people in high position, in elevated place (sàb- elu) [137]- is an evidence which helps the student to understand what people had at that time in their minds, even if here we only have to do with learned men or at least with people speaking Greek.

Let us return to Vincentius and his wife’s underground funerary chamber. We have observed that it is not impossible for a priest of Sabazios to be buried in a Christian cemetery, probably because this god was popularly seen as not so different from the Father God worshipped by Christians: in spite of what is generally admitted by scholars, for instance, we find it difficult to rule out any close relationship between the bronze votive hands (representing the god’s hand blessing his believers) [138]and a well-known Christian gesture as the benedictio latina [139]. Indeed, though research concerning this subject has recently made great progress, there is quite a lot to investigate about Sabazios, its origins and its nature [140], because even its name still keeps many secrets and shadows: for the moment, we will limit ourselves to saying that, by recognizing for the first time in the noun saboi (which recurs among the words cried out by Sabazios’ believers during the dancing processions in honour of him [euoì saboì ues Attes] [141], according to Demosthenes’ grotesque tale) the presence of the already quoted Accadian noun sàbu (people, population, army, servants), a pioneer such as Semerano has opened a way which may be very far reaching [142], though Chwolson had hastened to exclude this evidence, along with many other elements [143].

Looking at the walls of the cellar, one soon notices, among the figures which Vibia meets in her journey after-death, two singular characters who cannot but attract our attention: Mercurius [144], who escorts her to Pluto’s (Dis Pater) transmundane court of justice, and a Good Angel (Angelus Bonus) [145], who introduces her to seven happy guests (bonorum iudicio iudicati) taking part in a banquet [146]. Is it a simple coincidence to find here some traditional figures of an Hermetic environment such as Hermes/Mercurius and Agathodaimon/Angelus Bonus, which all textual sources universally point to as being the two greatest Harranian prophets? [147]

But, provided that our basic hypotheisis is correct, we have more. The words composing Vincentius’ epitaph again attract our attention, since they are: Numinisantistes Sabazis Vincentius hic est qui sacra sancta Deum mente pia coluit. Well, if the last words have a technical sense, if, consequently, the sentence colere Deummente pia defines a special class of believers, namely people close to a Monotheistic religious view as the equivalent Greek expressions sèbein/sèbesthai tòn theòn clearly do, and if, finally, the central meaning of Arabic Sàbi’ùn is precisely mid-Converts [148], or rather people turning themselves towards the Theos Hypsistos’ cult, because of the heavy, massive influence of the semantic bulk carried on by such Greek verbs and by the parallel Greek nouns (sebòmenos/oi tòn theòn, theosebès/èis: we leave aside the corresponding Latin ones), we have found here a significant set of religious connections with Harràn and the Harrànian Sabians which, we believe, deserves further investigation.

Tertium Genus

We are now going to face a crucial point, by analysing a series of names such as Gentiles, Ethnoi, Hèllenes, Greeks, Hunafà’ (sing. Hanìf). Suffice it to recall here that the last one – or rather the parallel noun in Syriac: Hanpè (sing.: Hanpà) [149]- is usually employed into Syriac-Christian literature to translate the Greek nouns Ethnoi, Ethnikòi, Hellenes, and it is consequently assumed as an equivalent for Pagan [150], though the same Arabic term Hanìf in Islamic usage is considered on the contrary as a close synonym for Muslim: in Muhammad’s mind, the name Hanìf defines in fact a sort of primary Monotheist, in particular the religious position of Abraham who was not a Jew, nor was he a Christian, but he was a Hanìf, a Muslim, and not of the Polytheists, according to the Sura III’s famous verse [151].

We have to confess that we have never understood the bitter opposition to the semantic correspondence between the names Hanìf/Hunafà’ and Sàbi/Sàbi’ùn, proposed long ago by Pedersen [152], which scholars have generally maintained [153]. It is sufficient to read the titles of the Sabian Thàbit ibn Qurra’s works to realise that they can be exchanged without difficulties: it is true that, in three cases out of four, we find Hanpè and just in one Sàbhàyè [154], but the fact is very probably due to the relatively recent decision to assume the name Sàbi’ùn by the Harrànian people at that time (Thàbit dies in 901 C.E.), the sole aspect of Fihrist’s story about the meeting between Caliph al-Ma’mùn and Harranians in 823 C.E. [155]which we find convincing and which we therefore subscribe to without reserve [156].

On the other hand, throughout the passionate harangue in defence of his own and his coreligionists’ position (whose text, as in the case of the works’ titles in Syriac, was literally handed down to us by Barhaebreus’ Chronography), Thàbit ibn Qurra denotes all of them – believers in a religion which, in his opinion, is the most ancient and the noblest one – by the Syriac term Hanpè once again, while for defining the religion itself he uses the abstract noun Hanpùtà [157]. It is not difficult to understand that he does not mean by similar expressions what we usually do by saying Pagans or Gentiles on one side, and Paganism or Gentilism on the other, though at first sight it seems that there is no lexical alternative [158]: the best thing would be not to translate these words at all, as Hjarpe - when rendering the whole text in French - rightly did [159], but the problem still remains anyway.

It seems convenient to recall here an apparently odd opinion of Roger Bacon, who, in spite of his competence in Arabian-Islamic civilization, was in no doubt when qualifying Thàbit, namely the most important exponent of the Sabian-Harranian culture, as the greatest philosopher among all the Christians' [160]; likewise, when speaking about the religious conflict that arose at a certain moment between Thàbit and his fellow-citizens, the great orientalist Gustav Flugel did not hesitate many centuries later (in his Dissertatio de arabicis scriptorum graecorum interpretibus, 1841) to state that Thàbit a coetu et societate Christianorum remotus et exclususest [161].

It would seem quite obvious to think that a simple mistake had been made by both scholars: but how could it happen and, above all, why? We have to do with two very learned men, and with a philosopher, a scientist, a religious leader of first magnitude: how is it possible to give such information, if it is completely wrong? Instead might it not be interesting to think that there were serious historical reasons for consciously exchanging Sabians with Christians, namely that a similar confusion had really happened because people often were not able to distinguishing from the other? [162]

As a matter of fact, nobody till now had been able to explain completely the ways in which the name Hanìf came to assume in the Qur’àn an opposite meaning to the parallel term in the Syriac-Christian lexicon, where it has a wholly negative connotation [163]. We go slightly forward nevertheless, by noting that such a semantic value is not carried by the word itself, since it has been used in that way only under certain historical conditions, namely according to a precise religious point of view. As Faris and Glidden had demonstrated once and for all, by analysing diachronically the word’s usage in different inter-linguistic and inter-cultural contexts, the basic meaning of Syriac Hanpà is Hellenist, Greek, of Hellenistic education [164]: so everything depends on the religious meaning which one gives to these expressions. They may mean Pagan, just as they may not: certainly, they do not include the meaning of Pagan if by this word one wants to define a simple Heathen, an uncivilized Idolater, a Peasant continuing to worship age-old idols [165]. That is the central point.

In our I Sebòmenoi, we had suggested a puzzling connection between the Koranic verses mentioning the Sabians and the Apology’s excerpt where Aristide – as well as some other Holy Fathers of the IV century - express the well-known argument of the rise of Christianity in terms of Tertium Genus [166]. It is worth-while remembering M. Simon’s comments on this subject: Dès lors que l’Eglise victorieuse étend ses conquêtes jusqu’aux limites du monde civilisé et tend à se confondre avec lui, elle en revendique l’héritage; et lorsque les Pères du IVe siècle répondent aux Juifs, ils parlent non plus simplement en chrétiens, mais au nom des gens du dehors, appellés à remplacer Israel: Ecclesia ex gentibus' [167]. It is this superimposition of the Church on the Hellenic civilization which created a historical confusion difficult to clear up [168]. On one hand, after having won the long struggle of claiming its right of existence, Christianity receives Hellad’s inheritance, because Hellenic culture was the previous civilisation while now the civilization is the Church itself; on the other hand, the word Hellenes was keeping, in certain contexts such as the Syriac one already observed, its natural meaning of an ethnical group completely indifferent, if not hostile and opposed, to the Church [169]: it is the old Greece’s mythical world which survives in the collective imagination with its anthropomorphic deities, with its capricious gods, with its up to date fantastic figures. But such a world exists only as a landscape of the past, so that it easily disappears into the big and undifferentiated mass of barbarous polytheists.

This fact may explain why, in the Greek version of Aristide’s Apology, the Greeks completely vanish: Trìa gène eisìn en tòde tò kòsmo, òn eisì oi par’ umìnlegomènon theòn proskynetaì kaì Ioudaìoi kaì Khristianoì [170]. The Greeks, as it were, split themselves in two parts, both having become invisible: the good Greeks, masters of knowledge and eternal symbols of developed civilization, have been suddenly included into the Christian community; the bad Greeks, the naives and fierce polytheists of the past, have on the other hand been included into the group of the unbelievers [171]. The situation changes in the Syriac version, where one comes nearer to Muhammad’s pattern of world religions, since one reads: This is evident to you, king, that human races are four: Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians" [172]. Actually, one might have found an exactly corresponding prototype of the Koranic text, if the Greeks had been part here – as it is the case for the Sabians in the Qur’àn – of the set of the believers (the People of the Book), but it is not so: the Syriac excerpt of the Apology displays a sketch-map of the historical progress of Religion, by means of the significant equation Religions-Peoples which from this date becomes very common [173], but these four groups are sharply divided into two halves, the comma leaves no doubt: into the latter the Monotheists are placed, the Jews and the Third New People, the Christians; into the former, as a whole, Idolaters (Barbarians) and Polytheists, namely the bad Greeks observed above, where such a presence is a natural issue of what has been said before about the ecclesiastical negative connotation of the term Hanpè.

En passant, a phenomenon of extreme gravity had happened: the historical removal of a so-called third group of Greeks, a huge multitude of persons whose numerical volume was, as we said, surely not smaller in Late Antiquity than that of the Judaic community or of the Christian one: the Pagan Monotheists, the God- Fearers/Worshippers [174]. Christian engagement in order to sweep away this uneasy religious reality goes on for centuries, since any trace of its existence must be totally erased, even if some strongholds of the opposite field continue to offer resistance to the knives. Harràn is one of the most striking examples of that: Harrànians, in fact, were normally identified with the Greeks, even long before the city became an active centre for the translation of Greek scientific and philosophical texts into Syriac and Arabic, for which learned work it has to be viewed, in addition to its other relevant features, as one of the most important world channels for the transmission of the Hellenic culture to the West during the Middle Ages [175]. In Calcedon Council’s time, the city was already known as Hellenopolis or Hellènon Polis, to be understood as City of the Pagans indeed (as the Latin version of the same Council’s Acts explicitly states: Paganorum civitatis) [176], because of its strong conservative spirit in religious matters and its solid links with Greek-Hellenistic education [177]. Also Arabs continue to perpetuate such a portrait of the Harranians, by seeing them as the Greek civilization’s heirs or merely as the Greeks themselves: the philo-Hellenic Purity’s Brethren, for instance, declare: …Greeks …have got by (today’s) people different names, among which Sabians (Sàbi’ùn), Harrànians and Hatùfùn (Hanifùn ?) [178]; while al-Bìrùnì’s Chronology, one of the most extensive and interesting sources about Medieval Harràn and its Sabian inhabitants, witnesses what follows: The Harrànians … are the remains of the followers of the ancient religion of the West, separated (cut off) from it, since the Ionian Greeks (i.e. the ancient Greeks, not the Romaìoi or Byzantine Greeks) adopted Christianity [179].

Some scholars such as A. Sprenger, C.C. Torrey and C.S. Lyall connected the Arabic term Hanìf with Hebrew Hànef, usually translated heretic or also profane, rather than with the Syriac Hanpà [180]: indeed, even in Hebrew the semantic value is somewhat ambiguous, if the common opinion according to which the same Enoch was a Hànef, sometimes righteous (saddìq), sometimes wicked [181]carries any weight. On the other hand, Medieval Muslim lexicographers, and also some orientalists, insisted on the Arabic origin of the name [182], by seeing it as a derivation from the Arabic verb hanafa, to decline, to turn away from and consequently assigning it the meaning of one who turns aside or secedes from his community in the matter of religion [183]; while Father Lammens on his side pointed out to the close connections among the Arabic verbs (V form) tahannafa, tahannata and ta’allaha (the last verb being - incidentally - the final expression of the saying carved upon the door of the majma’ of the Harranian Sabians still at the beginnings of the IV H./X century C.E. according to al-Ma’sùdi: we will return to that) [184]in relation with les formes diverses de l’ascétisme chez les anciens Arabes [185].

In reality, we seem to remain always in the same semantic field, with the immanent dialectics Good-Evil already observed when discussing the Hebrew root SHUBH: everything depends on one’s point of view [186]. But Hanìf is strictly associated with the Muslim concept of fitra, the natural disposition, and may be connected therefore with the primary constitution of mankind: Set thy face then, hanìf-fashion towards the goal (dìn) God hath disposed within the nature of man (or according to the constitution God hath constituted man), for no change can be effected in the creation of God [187]. Leaving aside the Koranic usage of the term, we shall look briefly at the main features of those ascetics seeking God [188]about whom several Arab sources provide evidence. They are not Jews nor Christians, because they are said to follow the millat Ibrahìm, the way of Abraham, and in Abraham’s times these cults did not exist yet [189]. It is, however, quite strange that, when they come in contact with a Christian country and dwell there for a certain time, it is not unusual for them to convert to Christianity: three out of four Hunafà’ recorded by Ibn Ishàq in the Sìra [190], became Christians, Ubayd Allàh ibn Jahsh in Abyssinia and Uthmàn ibn Huwayrith at Costantinople, only Waraqa ibn Nawfal (the cousin of Muhammad’s wife Khadìja) remaining in the region of Hijàz’; the fourth also, Zayd ibn Amr, travelled abroad, through Syria and Mesopotamia, in quest of the true religion but, unlike the others, he did not find what he was looking for: anyway, he abandoned the worship of idols, abstained from eating that which had died of itself, and from blood, and from things sacrificed to idols, and forbade the burying alive of infants. He proclaimed that he worshipped the Lord of Abraham [191].

Sabians = Adherents of the Prevailing Religion

What does one learn from these stories? At least two things. The first would seem to corroborate an exceptionally fitting definition of the Sabians by al-Bìrùnì to which we shall turn at once: exceptional because it is unique for its exactness and clearness, and also because the great Persian polygraph shows that he is able to improve a definition of the real Sabians, given by him within his Chronology almost thirty years before, which in our previous study we found already very interesting and suggestive. Actually we have to do with two passages, that are respectively contained in chapter VIII and chapter XVIII of the book, but their remarkable similarity allows us to quote here only the first text: it is worth noting, however, that the writer felt the need to repeat twice what he had come to know on the subject, because this detail suggests that he was perfectly aware of the special importance of such an explanation of the historical rising of Sabianism. He writes: The Sabians are the remnant of the Jewish tribes who remained in Babylonia, when the other tribes left it for Jerusalem in the days of Cyrus and Artaxerxes. Those remaining tribes felt themselves attracted to the rites of the Magians, and so they inclined (were inclined, i.e. Sàbi) towards the religion of Nebukadnezar, and adopted a system mixed of Magism and Judaism like that of Samaritans in Syria [192].

Well, we perceived that a similar version of the facts suddenly opened a window on the truth: what more could one desire than this? It was the extremely plain description of the phenomenon of Proselytism in relation to the Jewish people [193], of its first chronological manifestation … [194]; or rather it was in this sense that we were tempted to interpret the excerpt: it seemed in fact to confirm on the whole our hypothesis about the equation Sabians–God-Fearers, by laying the foundation stone of the theoretical building. Though pointing to the same direction, however, the Chronology’s text says literally something slightly different, but in order to understand what such a thing would be we have to look at al-Bìrùnì’s complementary definition of the Sabians which we started from, the one contained in his Kitàb altafhìm, the Book of Initiation in the Elements of the Art of Astrology.

Here, in the relevant section dealing with the Horoscope of Religions [195], where the seven planets are put in correspondence with just as many universal religions, one finds the Moon - namely the lowest of the seven heavenly bodies, naturally associated with Harràn because of the Sumero-Babylonian cult of the Moon-God Sìn whose worship was still alive in this ancient city, proud of its religious traditions, during the Muslim Middle Ages [196]– placed in parallel with the Sabians, just as one might have expected. But really surprising is the formula by which al-Bìrùnì delimits Sabianism, since Sabians become now the Adherents of the Prevailing Religion (alladhìna bi-dìn kulli gàlibin) [197]. Perfectly fitting! Impeccable! It is impossible to define in a better way the idea of what has been called, to use a infelicitous expression indeed, mid-Conversion [198]. A general but not generic formula, where among many other things one recognizes also the devotional position of the four Hunafà’ whom we have met above: to make Conversion a well-identified phenomenon, one needs not only a private spiritual feeling enlarged to massive dimensions, but also a dominant religion, namely a cult able to have a prevalent position over the others. In any case, that was how the process developed in the course of history: only when a single religion, Christianity, became the official Religion of the Roman Empire, in fact, did Conversion begin to be acknowledged as a clear, unquestionable fact, representing a social and religious reality that people could eventually conceive without difficulties and therefore express without linguistic ambiguities.

Hypsistarii, Sebòmenoi/Phoboùmenoi (tòn Theòn), Theosebeìs, Massaliani,Euphemitai, Caelicolae, Hunafà

Adherents of the Prevailing Religion: let us pay attention to the first term. Adherents simply means Symphatizers [199], Close to, To get ready for, it does not mean Full Converts, which is exactly the case of the God-Fearers. Probably al- Bìrùnì should have added to the last words of his definition the attribute Monotheistic, since we always have to do with people who made the fundamental step to turn themselves to the faith in One Most-High God, in One Supreme Deity [200] in reference to whom the other lesser deities play often the role of heavenly messengers, of angels, as the Oracle from Oenoanda – that is from the Northern Lycian site where one of the rare Hypsistarii’s cult-places has been found – explicitly states by Apollo’s mouth: Born of itself, untaught, without a mother, unshakeable, not contained in a name, known by many names, dwelling in fire, this is God. We, his angels, are a small part of God [201]. But it is true, also, that after the final victory of Christianity God-Fearers’ communities – whose names historically range from Hypsistarii, Hypsistariani, to Theosebèis, Sebòmenoi tòn Theòn, Caelicolae etc. - but also the lonely individuals seeking after God known by the name Hunafà’ in the Near Eastern desert regions felt the attraction of Christianity by often achieving their spiritual way through a full Conversion to the Cross, while in previous times they were gravitating around the prevalent Monotheistic groups settled throughout the geographical areas where they lived, which as a rule were Jewish ones.

Al-Bìrùnì’s first-quoted text also turns the reader’s thought to the Jewish context, even if the Persian writer seems to believe that the Jewish presence along the Euphrates and Tigris valley is connected to a religious reality that will come along after several centuries, namely the migration from Palestine into Southern Mesopotamia of some Hemerobaptist sects as Elkesaits and Mandaeans [202]. But if one interprets the information by means of al-Bìrùnì’s second excerpt, one sees rather the real influence that Zoroastrianism had on Hebraic religion, because it was precisely during the Babylonian captivity that some typical features of Hebraism such as the juxtaposition Good-Evil and God-Satan or concepts such as the Last Judgement and the Resurrection of the Dead came into being [203]. To sum up, we have supposed that al-Bìrùnì’s first text was only to be connected with such a historical phenomenon; on the other hand, it had relations with the historical rising of Jewish Proselytism, and reminded for example a well-known textual passage by Josephus mentioning the transfer of the Jews from Babylon to Asia Minor by Antiochus III at the end of the III century B.C.E. [204]: it was from this original bulk that many well-organized Jewish communities spread throughout Asia Minor and elsewhere, exerting a strong spiritual attraction on the surrounding Gentile milieu, as archaeological findings have proved with certainty. In Afrodisia [205], in particular, Gentiles’ involvement in the local synagogue appears to have been really massive, since more than half of the people attending the cult-place were Gentiles whose status range across the entire social spectrum, from the highest civic positions and liberal professions to craftsmen and simple workers [206]: it is worth noting, once again, that such people were not fullconverts, but plain theosebeìs, God-Fearers, whereas only three individuals are recorded in the engraved inscription mentioning the donors’ names of the beneficent institution which they contribute to as proselytoi [207], namely people legally converted to Judaism [208]. Probably the Roman laws prohibiting circumcision and conversion to Judaism since Hadrian’s times played a significant role in such a meagre number of persons claiming explicitly that passing of the boundary which Juvenal so greatly feared and bitterly mocked: here, in fact, most of the no-Jews prefer to remain in the more neutral religious position of Juvenal’s pater metuens sabbata, worshipping nubes et caeli numen and abstaining from carne suillam rather than that of the son who decides to make the last step and thus mox et praeputia ponit without any reserve [209].

Beyond such vague elements, we know very little about the God-Fearers’ cultic practices. From Oenoanda’s text one learns that sometimes their cult had solar features, because of the Oracle’s prescription to the faithful to pray in direction of the rising sun, namely facing east, gazing up at heaven and offering prayers to the allseeing Aether [210]. A tendency to solar Monotheism comes also out from J. Ustinova’s speculations about the Iranian background of the religious position of the thiasoi, the cultic associations – called eispoietoì adelphoì sebòmenoi theòn hypsiston, but also synodos of thiaseitai or thiasòtai – worshipping Theòs Hypsistos in Tanais and in several other Greek colonies on the Northern shore of the Black Sea in the first half of the II c. C.E. [211], though we reject her general conclusions [212]. We should not dwell here on the connection established by E. Schurer more than one century ago between these groups of Monotheistic or quasi-Monotheistic believers and the metuentes attested by epigraphic and literal evidence in the Latin West [213], but above all with the sebòmenoi (tòn theòn), the phoboùmenoi (tòn theòn), the Hellenes whom Saint Paul regularly meets in the course of his indefatigable mission [214]in the synagogues of Asia Minor and Greece where he preaches the evangelical message (but in other meetingplaces also, mostly after Paul’s last theological break with the Jews [215]: Thus I shall go to Gentiles) [216], and who consequently appear to be the original bulk of the emerging Christianity according to Luke’s Acts.

For the cultic features of the Western metuentes, what we have observed in Juvenal’s satyrical verses [217]is perhaps enough; in reference to God-Fearers’ practices in Acts one must rather stress the crucial decision of Jerusalem’s Council (51 C.E.) [218], where the duties of such Gentile Converts to Christianity were fixed once and for all: Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood [219]. What is that? It is just the moral-religious code which, according to rabbinical tradition, every man is obliged to follow, and in particular the stranger, the resident alien (gertoshàb, ger ash-sha’ar) in the State of Israel [220]: the so-called Noachite Laws [221]. There exist various versions of such prescriptions [222], but it is interesting to notice now that after this historical decision Christians Converts coming from Gentilism, namely uncircumcised Christians (Ecclesia ex Gentibus) [223], God-Fearers, at least the sebòmenoi/phoboùmenoi (tòn theòn)/Hellenes contacted by Paul and other apostles, Hunafà’, at least the Hanìf Zayd whose devotional practices are the only ones to be explicitly stated in the Sìra [224], Sabians, whom many traditions consider as Noah’s heirs and consequently followers of the Noachite Laws [225], and finally Harranians, whose capital city is said to have been founded by Noah or by some of his relatives (a son or a nephew) after the Flood [226], appear to share to some extent the same ethicalreligious duties.

But let us go on checking the available textual evidence about God-Fearers’ beliefs and rites. What Gregory of Nazianzus witnesses about the Cappadocian group called by him Hypsistarii is quite interesting, since he is speaking about his own father, converted to Christianity by some bishops en route to the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), thus handing down a direct and personal experience: The Cult was a mixture of two elements, Hellenic error and adherence to the Jewish law … Its followers reject the idols and sacrifices of the former and worship fire and lamplight; they revere the sabbath and do not touch certain foods, but have nothing to do with circumcision. To the humble they are called Hypsistarians, and the Pantokrator is the only god they worship [227].

There may be little doubt about the relations between this group of devotees of the Highest Divinity and the enigmatic [228]community of worshippers of the god Sabbatistés mentioned in a Cilician inscription dating back to Augustus’ time and elsewhere called etairéa tòn Sambati[stòn [229]. The members of such a cultic association, denoting themselves by the term etaìroi, surely revered the Sabbath, even if they could not be native Jews nor proselytes: as Tcherikover rightly pointed out, in fact, Jews would never refer to their God as the God of the Sabbath' [230]. We are, therefore, dealing with a Gentile environment, namely with observers of the Jewish Seventh Day of rest whose Hellenistic organization appears to be similar to that of the other groups of pagan believers in a Transcendental Deity.

A passage from Gregory of Nyssa’s Contra Eunomium is another classical source about Hypsistiani: that is the name, indeed very similar to the previous one recorded by the other Gregory, by which he denotes the members of this Monotheistic group, but without adding any relevant information except for the acknowledgement of attributes such as the highest and Pantokrator given to God by them and, at the same time, their rejection of a Christian attribute such as Father in reference to God [231].

The testimony of Epiphanius about Messalians (Those who pray), even called Euphemitai (Those who bless), happens during the same period (376 C.E.) and is contained in his Panarion where the subject is discussed at length. The Cyprian bishop distinguishes between a Christian sect by this name and the Pagan community [232], for both of which he shows very little sympathy indeed, but we are for the moment only interested to record what the famous heresiologist knows about the latter: They are simply pagans who admit the existence of gods but worship none among them; they adore one God only, whom they call Almighty. They also construct for themselves certain houses or spacious areas, like fora, which they call proseuchai. Of old there were certain places of prayer among the Jews which were outside the city, and among the Samaritans, as we find as well in the Acts of theApostles, where Lydia, a seller of purple goods, met those with Paul … Now these earlier Messalians, who derive themselves from pagans and who appeared on the scene before those at present who derive from the Christian religion, have themselves constructed on the one hand certain small places in certain regions which are called proseuchai or eukteria, while in other locations they have built for themselves something like churches, where they gather at evening and morning with much lighting of lamps and torches and lengthy singing hymns and acclamations to God by the zealous among them, through which hymns and acclamations they fondly think to conciliate God [233].

One changes geographical area with Cyril of Alexandria, whose information is worthy of attention mostly because of the name of the group that he mentions, for it recurs again under the form of Theosebeìs, which we have already encountered. They live in Phoenicia and Palestina, worship Hypsistos Theòs but also other deities such as the Sun and the Moon, Earth and Heaven, and the brightest stars: just as was the case for Gregory of Nazianzus’ Hypsistarii, also Cyril claims that Theosebeìs’ beliefs and ritual customs are neither Jewish or Christian, but are a sort of mixture of both [234].

In Northern Africa, finally, one finds a group known by the name Caelicolae in the first years of the V century, because it is mentioned in two constitutions of the Theodosian Code (408 and 409 C.E.) [235]: these Caelicolae - whose maior seducing many Christians into a sacrilegious second baptism also Saint Augustine is shown to have been in contact with [236]- are charged with being a heretical Judaizing sect and are consequently outlawed by the emperors Honorius and Arcadius, even if it is not clear whether such legal measures were ever successful [237]. Yet it is specially important for our purposes that the same name is used twice in Beza Latin translation of Acts: since the word is used to render the Greek term sebòmenoi [238], in fact, one can assume with Schurer that their beliefs were quite similar to those of the God-Fearers already attested in Asia Minor and elsewhere [239].

From this brief chronological and geographical survey emerges a real religious frontier, which some authors have also recognized [240]. For the rituals, it is not possible to go beyond the evidence, so that one must limit oneself to say that, even when organized communities are concerned, God-Fearers’ religious prescriptions were absolutely not rigid ones and thus can be viewed as a rule within the loose horizon included by the Noachite Laws [241]. There was probably sometimes a solar aspect in the cult, the weight of which it is not possible to determine precisely in the different communities, and which might also be totally absent. All this explains why - we believe - several Muslim interpreters of the Middle Ages explicitly claim that the Sabians are a religious group which has no cult, scripture and prophet, admitting only the tawhìd, the profession of faith: ‘There is no god but God’ (Là Allah ill’Allah) [242]: a religion which has no cult looks like a paradox, but after what we have learnt about God-Fearers it ceases to appear as such. In the meantime, this evidence – among many other findings - proves that the Mandaean hypothesis about Koranic Sabians is on the wrong road and should consequently be given up.

The Sabians According to First Islamic Sources

During the first two centuries of the Islamic Era, Near Eastern authors do not distinguish between real and false Sabians: this distinction, in fact, came to the light only in the first half of the III H./IX C.E. c., namely after the Harranians assumed the name Sabians to define their religious position in relation to the Baghdad Caliphate, during a period when the inter-religious dialogue was quite intense [243]. These scholars seem the better source, therefore, for understanding or at least for coming as near as possible to the very nature of the Sabians mentioned by Muhammad in the Qur’àn [244]: actually one wonders at these interpreters’ honesty of mind, because they generally appear not to fear being too close to the text and adding very poor information to what it literally express. As far as the three Koranic passages recording the Sàbi’ùn are concerned, the Holy Text shows the following chains of (universal) religions: Believers (Those who believe, Muslims), the Jews, the Christians, the Sabians (Sura II, 62); Believers, the Jews, the Sabians, the Christians (Sura V, 69); Believers, Those who are the Jews, the Sabians, the Christians, the Magians, Unbelievers (Those who set up gods [with God], Pagans of old) (Sura XXII, 17).

Well, with great coherence all these sources state that the Sabians are a religious group between the Jews and the Christians, or between the Jews and the Magians, or that they are a Christian sect, or, finally, that they are a separate religion: it is easy to see, therefore, that here the distance from what the text literally says is very limited, or even nonexistent. It is important to remember, besides, the name that defines here the Christians, i.e. al-Nasàra: since it is true that al-Nasàra is the term usually employed in the Muslim World from the beginnings to name the Christians [245], but we know that it was not just the only one in use in Muhammad’s times. It is enough to quote the term ràhib (pl. ruhàb), monk, ascetic [246], but also philosopher [247], by which Christians were often identified by Arabs and by other people dwelling in Near Eastern desert regions or in the surrounding geographical areas [248]; or to remember a famous religious community such as al-Ibàd, The Worshippers, The Servants (of God), i.e. the Nestorian Christians living in al-Hìra [249], in Southern Mesopotamia.

Regarding the Sabians’ beliefs and rites, the following evidence comes out from these sources: 1) They believe in only One God [250]; 2) They do not have any cult, scripture or prophet [251]; 3) They state they are followers of the prophet Noah [252]; 4) They pray to the Sun [253]; 5) They pray in the direction of the qiblah [254]; 6) They worship the angels and read the psalms (zabùr) [255]; 7) They believe in the prophets [256]; 8) They have 5 daily ritual prayers [257]; 9) They fast 30 days a year [258].

It is clear that there are some contradictions among these statements; it is evident, in other words, that some of these scholars have in mind a certain religious community, a precise one, probably even the Mandaeans or another Baptismal sect, since some of them lived – as they still do nowadays – in the South of Iraq [259]. But the problem is not to determine whether the Mandaeans may be included among the Sabians and may consequently be part of the People of the Book [260]; the problem is whether these features fit with their religion or not. Now, we think that a statement such as the second one, namely that they do not have any cult, scripture or prophet, or that they do not have a certain canonical law, or even that they have no distinctive religion is a very singular feature. Actually, with the final summary of the beliefs and the rites of the Sabians made by S. Gunduz, the last and resolute exponent of the Mandaean party[261], one cannot appreciate thoroughly the real weight that the above cited definitions have according to these scholars, while they recur very frequently and are particularly stressed by many of them [262].

But which religion does not have any cult? Well, we believe that such a singular feature can only be applied to a loose group of believers such as the God-Fearers: moreover, their religious position perfectly fits with many other elements of the evidence collected above, and in particular with the statements: 1) because the faith in One (Most-High) God is the most characteristic God-Fearers’ religious feature; 3) because of their links with Noah which we have observed when discussing the Noachite Laws; 4) because of the cult’s solar aspects which we have sometimes noted among God-Fearers’ ritual practices; 5) for the same reason, since the Arabic term qiblah defines in general the cosmic centre, not - as Gunduz seems to believe – the South, and consequently it may refer to the different positions of the Sun in the sky during the 24 hours cycle (thus including also the North) [263], in which direction the faithful probably addressed his prayers to; 6) because of the cult of the angels which, again, we have recognized as being particularly present among the God- Fearers (we leave aside for the moment the problem of zabùr). We have no elements that help us to decide whether the final three points of our list are congruent with the God-Fearers’ faith: it is worth noting, anyway, that point 8) may be a natural issue of the cult’s solar aspects already mentioned, whereas point 7) may be seen as a consequence of the Biblical tradition, certainly well-known by many of these communities’ members [264]; point 9), finally, is reckoned by just one scholar, ‘Abù al- Zanàd, the same person who records that they believe in the prophets and that they have 5 ritual prayers daily with Ziyàd ibn-Abìhì (and, just for the last statement, with Qatàdah).

The First Latin Translation of the Koran: Sabians = Christians?

We think it important to recall here the first authoritative Latin version of the Koran made in Spain by Robert of Ketton and Hermann of Carinzia’s staff of translators according to Peter the Venerable’s will, in the year 1143 C.E. [265]. The expressions chosen by those scholars chose to translate the name Sabians in the three Koranic passages in question are in fact very instructive for our purposes. Let us read, then, the Latin text: Sciendum autem generaliter, quoniam omnis recte vivens, Iudeus seuChristianus, seu lege sua relicta in aliam tendens, omnis scilicet Deum adorans,bonique gestor, indubitanter divinum amorem assequetur (II, 62) [266]; Credentes atqueIudaei, et angelos loco Dei adorantes, qui scilicet legem pro lege variant, Christianietiam, omnes hi inquam si in Deum crediderint, et iudici diem expectantesbenefecerint, nihil timeant (V, 69) [267]; Iam tibi coelitus missa re manifesta, quos vultin viam rectam Deus diriget: qui super omnia potens, illa die credentium etIudaeorum, ac leges variantium Christianorum, item et gentilium ac incredulorumiudex atque discussor inter erit (XXII, 17) [268].

We must not forget that we have to do with a learned translation, which should virtually gather the best sources of information about the Koranic text [269]; besides, one can observe that in XII century Spain Islamic civilisation had been deeply rooted for hundreds of years, and it was therefore the best cultural milieu to carry on such a work. On the other hand, as everybody knows, Spain was the main cultural channel through which most of the old Greek works (but Persian, Indian etc. ones also), lost in the West many centuries earlier, were translated indirectly from a second hand Arabic version into a Latin one, so that they eventually became available to an European public. Anyway, scholars generally acknowledge that Robert and Hermann have accomplished good work, because the translation [270]is quite literal: it is not by chance, for example, that also the first Italian translation of the Koran (1547) is based upon such an original Latin version [271].

But let us begin with the Sabian passage of the Sura II: it is not difficult to recognize the equation Sabians = God-Fearers, if it is true that the latter are really not full Converts, but just people who have abandoned (at least in part) their previous beliefs and are seeking after (the Latin participial form tendens is here perfectly fitting) another religion, not without having done in the meantime the fundamental spiritual step of believing in only One Deity, the Most-High God. The background of this information is, likewise, easy to identify: it is one of the most significant semantic values of the Arabic verbs saba’a and sabà that al-Tabarì and many other interpreters took in order to explain the name Sàbi. The word means someone who takes on a new religion other than his own, the great Koranic commentator states, adding that the term is an equivalent of the noun murtadd, renegate, apostate [272].

In the Sabian passage of the Sura V it is perhaps possible to recognize two different keys of interpretation: the expression qui scilicet lege pro lege variant, who in other words change the Law into (for) another one, looks like a detail suggesting – just as the reading of the zabùr, the David’s Psalms which we have met above among the Sabian features [273]– a Christian milieu rather than a Sabian one; but we shall soon see that such a distinction probably was not always made by external observers, so that one could often exchange one for the other. On the other hand, the sentence angelos loco Dei adorantes is quite strange here, because it seems to be evident that the group in question belongs to the wider category of the Believers, the Monotheists: so what reason is there to suspect the act of worshipping angels instead of God? We have noticed that angels’ worship is an important feature in the cult of Theos Hypsistos by the God-Fearers, mostly in Asia Minor where a lot of inscriptions mentioning angels have been found [274]. Angels play an important role in Jewish religious culture [275], but at least in this region they appear to be a common feature of Jews, Christians and God-Fearers: Saint Paul in fact reproached the Colossians for their custom of worshipping angels, but we must acknowledge that similar admonitions were made in vain, if Theodoret’s commentary on that text does not fail to show that their cult was still alive in Phrigia and Pisidia four centuries later [276]. Then, do we have to do with God-Fearers or with (heterodox) Christians here?

The Sabian passage in the Sura XXII is the most puzzling one: here, in fact, the lack of a comma between leges variantium and Christianorum obliges the reader to understand the expression as a whole [277]; actually, it seems reasonable to look at the Christians in terms of the historical people who really changed the (Old Testament) Law [278], even if at this point the group of the Sabians/God-Fearers ceases completely to appear. Perhaps it is not useless, therefore, to insist upon the historical role played by the God-Fearers during the crucial period of the rising of Christianity, at least according to the Acts’ version of the facts and to Luke’s witness about the sympathy that the phoboùmenoi/sebòmenoi (tòn theòn) felt while listening to the evangelical message, often converting themselves to Christianity [279].

The historical closeness between the two religious groups also emerges with particular relevance from the evidence collected in S. Pines’ 1968 important article The Iranian Name for Christians and God-Fearers. Given the special interest of the subject for our area of research, we quote it at length: In Pahlavi, Sogdian and New Persian, the meaning of one of the most common designations for Christians is ‘fearers’ (tarsàkàn), whereas in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syriac, similar words, with identical meaning (often, but not always, coupled with God’s name), denote the ‘God-Fearers’ (or Yir’è shamayim), viz., Gentiles who, in the period before or immediately after the beginning of the Christian Era, believed in the God of the Jews and observed some of their precepts … In all probability, the designation tarsàk is … a vestige that testify to the fact that, in countries in which Aramaic or an Iranian language was spoken, on the borders of the Persian Empire or within it, the Christians, during a certain historical period, were identified with the ‘God-Fearers’, in the technical sense of the term … The designation of the Christians by the name tarsakàn is, consequently, further proof of the strong connections which existed in the Iranian regions (and in the eastern border-lands of the Roman Empire) between primitive Christianity and the circles of the sebòmenoi' [280].

Pines’ study is especially important for two reasons: in fact it corroborates our hypothesis about the presence of God-Fearers along the borders of the Arabian peninsula or in the neighbouring regions in the historical period which we are dealing with, and it also supposes – as we do – that a confusion between God-Fearers and Christians could sometimes have appeared. Such a confusion was probably due to some similarities in cult practices between both religious groups, as we have already observed, so that in certain geographical areas and during a certain historical period both communities were perhaps called with an identical name by external observers [281]. If such is the case, passages in the Koran about the Sàbi’ùn could be interesting historical testimonies of bilingualism, such as that one showed by the famous Middle- Persian Inscription from Kartìr: here, the simultaneous quotation, among other religious groups, of nàcarày and kristiyàn, is explained by M.L. Chaumont, who published and translated the document, in the following way: Les mots nàcarày et kristiyàn se rapporteraient l’une l’autre aux chrétiens orthodoxes sans aucune acception d’hérésie. Leur jusxtaposition serait l’effet d’un bilinguisme qui s’était instauré depuis peu au sein de la chrétienté perse … Il est très frappant que dans les Acta de Siméon bar Sabba’è les termes kristiyanà et nasorayè sont employés comme synonymes. Avec l’inscription de Kartìr, nous sommes peut-être à l’origine de ce double emploi. Le rédacteur du document, s’il connaissait l’un et l’autre vocable, ne savait sans doute pas qu’ils pouvaient s’appliquer à la même religion [282].

A third testimony which we wish to discuss here comes from one of the Hadìth texts concerning the Arabic root SB’, with the meaning changing one’s religion for another, to apostatize, which we already know as a whole. The excerpt comes from to chapter LVIII of al-Bukhàrì’s Sahìh, consecrated to al-jiziya wa al-mwàda’ama’a àhl al-dhimma wa al-harb, namely to the rules which Muslims had to keep when coming in contact with other populations [283]: in these cases, the problem was whether to consider these persons as being part of the People of the Book, the Monotheistic communities enjoying the right of tolerance (Jews, Christians, Magians and Sabians), in exchange for the payment of a special tax, the jiziya, foreseen in these cases by Islamic law. The title of the paragraph which we are dealing with is About the case when the enemies, after having been won, say: ‘We (want to) become Sabians (sabà’na, sabà’na)’, without having been able to say correctly ‘We (want to) become Muslims (aslamna, aslamna)’ [284], and it narrates a quite strange story, indeed. While Khàlid in such a situation did not hesitate to slaughter everybody, being criticized afterwards by the Prophet who kept a distance from his fierce behaviour, ‘Umar on his side claimed that, when some enemy cried out the (Persian) word Matras! [285](Do not fear!), he had to be saved.

What is the meaning of this episode? Actually it is not easy to interpret. As often happens when one tries to deepen the meaning of the textual evidence about the Sabians [286], the sense of the document is not completely clear in this case either. At first sight it would seem that the word matras is a sort of password, providing the external boundaries of the concrete religious goal which the people here at stake are pointing to. After what we have learnt about the Persian name for Christians – Tarsakàn - from Pines’ study, in fact, we can be reasonably sure that the individuals in question by pronouncing such a word would roughly intend to embrace the idea of religious fear.

But the imperative form of the verb remains still quite problematic: how is it possible for a person vanquished by another to say (to him): Do not fear! ? Has there ever been a mistake in the transcription of the verb’s tense ? Everything becomes very much clearer, though, when one takes into account the well-known Old Testament formula ‘al-tirà (do not fear!), recurring in many different literary and social contexts, among which one in particular deserves our attention being exactly paralleled by the story handed down by al-Bukhàrì: the (Holy) War. The general encourages his soldiers to fight precisely by means of the expression do not fear!, which on the other hand belongs to the stereotyped phraseology of holy war also beyond the borders of the Jewish culture [287].

We are therefore able to state that the commonly accepted translation of the verb saba’na, namely we (want to) become Sabians, is very probably not the right one, and that it should rather be changed into we (want to) become God-Fearers, or Christians, as well as plainly Monotheists.

Harranians’ Cult of the Most-High God

The last problem which we must discuss is the Harranian religious position. As we have said more than once, the version contained in al-Nadìm’s Fihrist of the reasons why Harranians chose to assume the name Sabians during the first half of the III H./IX C.E. century, seems to us at least partially unbelievable, and we think with Hjarpe that it can be sufficiently explained through the needs of religious controversy [288]: the historical source from which al-Nadìm takes this information is in fact the Christian Abù Yusùf al-Qathii, namely the author of the Talking Head, the horrible story recorded later by the same Fihrist [289]: no doubt, therefore, about this person’s wish of denigrate the Harranian people and their ritual practices, by shedding on them all the most unfavourable light [290].

Well, let us look more seriously at the picture. It is not possible that Harranians could have continued to follow their ancient traditions in the open air for centuries if their religious position was not able to be included within a Monotheistic pattern, and if it had been, consequently, in striking contradiction with the surrounding Islamic milieu [291]. But we believe, however, that it was absolutely not an affair of corruption, and that it certainly was not just by means of a lot of naive lies and shameful bribes – as the Fihrist and other textual sources of the Middle Ages would have the reader believe [292]- that Harràn (a centre which for some years was the Ummayad Caliphate’s capital city! [293]) could keep its ancient beliefs and rites alive without undergoing any repression by the dominant Muslim government: on the contrary, as everybody knows, many Harranians enjoyed the Caliphs’ confidence and were held in high esteem because of their philosophical and scientific worth, mostly in the field of astronomy and mathematics’ [294], and it was surely not because of a simple varnish of Monotheism such as the one which the Harranian Sabians would have boasted according to M.J. De Goeje’s old opinion [295].

To demonstrate that the highly sophisticated theology adopted by the Harranian people corresponds to a Monotheistic point of view is an automatic action: the Neoplatonic system which dominates their conception of the kosmos [296], with the spiritual Beings living in it and acting as Mediators between Man and God, who dwells beyond all heavenly heights and therefore cannot directly communicate with him, is evident proof of that by itself [297]. It is important to stress the expressions by which such a transcendental Deity was named by Harranians, because it makes clear that their religious horizon was perfectly in keeping with the theology of TheòsHypsistos which we have recognized as the most characteristic feature of the God- Fearers’ cult. The document which proves beyond any doubt that both contexts share the same faith in One Most-High God is the famous manual of Magic, the Gayàt al-Hakìm (The Aim of the Sage) [298], better known in its Latin form Picatrix [299]under which it was widespread in Europe during the Middle Ages, and which represents moreover one of the best existing sources of information about the Harranian Sabians. Well, in the introductory section of the Gayà to the planetary prayers, where the general prescriptions to be observed before the beginning of the rite are listed, the author urges the faithful to: First of all fill yourself with fear of God: it is worth noting here that not only one finds out just the pass-word which we are expecting, the Most-High [300](God), but also the reference to the spiritual fear which we have learnt to be a God-Fearers’ typical attitude of mind. The fact that such expressions are not here by chance is demonstrated later on, throughout what we can call the Monotheistic series [301]of these astral invocations, because the repetition of a particular formula is required every time that the worshipper addresses himself to a planetary deity to fulfil his own desires: the formula in fact begins with the words: For the sake of the Lord of the High Building [302], where the hint to God’s Exceeding Highness is explicitly made once again in order to obtain the divine intercession before undertaking any ritual action.

What nobody has ever proved until now – as far as we know – is that also the popular religion of Harràn could correspond to a Monotheistic pattern, that is the crucial move allowing us to set Abù Yusuf al-Qathii’s calumnies aside definitively. >From this point of view one can adduce in fact Sumatar Harabesi’s evidence, where many Syriac inscriptions dating back to 165 C.E. have been found invoking 'Sìn, the God, or Sìn Marilahé, or, finally, simply Marilahé (The Lord of the Gods) [303]. The open-air shrine of Sumatar Harabesi lies a few kilometres North-East of Harràn, and there can be no doubt about the close religious relations existing between both places: despite Segal’s speculations about the identity of Marilaha (that was his reading of the divine name, The Lord God) with Baal Shamin, the Lord of the Heavens of the Semitic pantheon, the equation Marilahé = Moon-God Sìn has been demonstrated with certainty [304]: in Neo-Babylonian times (half of the VI B.C.E. c.), the Moon Deity was addressed in identical terms, 'Sìn Lord of the gods (Sìn bèl shà ilani) according to the famous Nabonide’s inscription discovered in Harràn [305], as it happened still in IV H./X C.E. c. according to an Harranian cultic calendar (Rabbu ‘làlihati) handed down once again by al-Nadìm [306].

If one leaves aside the evidence of Hatra, where some coins with the legenda SYNMRLH’ have been found in 1958 [307], it would seem that Sumatar inscriptions were the only epigraphic witness of Marilahé’s existence. But the 1970 discovery in Palmyra of an engraved block of stone mentioning again the Lord of the gods moves changes things. Even if the identity Sìn = Marilahè is problematic in Palmyra, because the Moon-God at the head of the pantheon is not under discussion here [308], this evidence suggests, on the other hand, that such a divine attribute in an Aramaic environment is to be considered similar, if not identical, to the Greek expression Theòs Hypsistos, so that it becomes specially interesting for us. In the same Palmyrian Diocletian’s Campus, 11 dedications to the unnamed God - also invoked in terms of Lord of the World and Lord of the Universe, autant de dénominations parallèles à celle de ‘Seigneur des dieux’ according to M. Gawlikowski who first published the document [309]- have been found by the Polish archaeological mission working upon this site; but the bilingual Latin-Greek dedication discovered in the near Temple des Enseignes even more explicitly fits our needs, since we are dealing with an ex-voto to Zeus Hypsistos whose name is rightly translated by Iuppiter Optimus Maximus in the Latin version of the same text [310]. We are facing, therefore a clear Monotheistic context here, where different ways to name the Supreme Deity appear simultaneously. The Monotheistic trend in Late Antiquity often raised to the head of the pantheon just one agnòstos theòs, one Anonymous God [311], but in many situations this highest status was rather taken by the divinity that had been previously placed in the most prominent position of the pantheon, such as it was the case of Sìn at Harràn [312]. The reason why it was impossible for Harranians to use a divine epithet having a semantic value exactly equivalent to Hypsistos is quite evident: the Moon, both in the Caldaean astronomical model and in the Greek one [313], occupies the lowest place among the planets, so that it would have seemed contradictory to name the deity ruling over this heavenly body with an attribute such as the Highest, in spite of the god’s paramount rank largely acknowledged by his devotees.

We will finally try to understand whether, and up to what limits the popular religion of Harràn could be accepted by the surrounding Muslim State without any problem, provided that its natural features corresponded to a true expression of Monotheism such as Sabianism, namely God-worship/Theosèbeia. For this purpose, we shall analyse a well-known document about the Harranians recorded by al-Ma’sùdi, the sole witness to have personally visited – as M. Tardieu did not fail rightly to stress [314]- the city of the Moon-God at the beginning of the IV H./X C.E. century. After having explained the religious traditions of this ancient people, by comparing their attitude of mind with the position of the Greek philosophers [315], the great Arabian historian concludes his paragraphs in the Murùj about Harràn by quoting the Arabic translation of the Syriac saying engraved upon the door of the only temple still existing there at that time. The saying, ascribed by him to Plato, recites Man ‘arafa dhata-hu ta’allaha [316], and has been discussed at length by scholars who have interpreted it in various ways: Chwolson proposed the reading Wer seines (Gottes) Wesen erkennt, der verhert ihn auch [317]- though he was also aware that the sentence was clearly marked back to Apollo’s precept gnòthi sautòn [318]- followed by the first French editor of al-Murùj adh-dhaàb, B. de Meynard (Celui qui connaît Dieu le redoute) [319]. Tardieu - who collected information to demonstrate the migration of the last Neoplatonists, after Justinian closed the Academy of Athen (525 C.E.), from Greece to Harràn, where from then on Neoplatonist learning was to survive unexpectedly for centuries - bitterly criticised such a translation, by remembering the second French edition of the Murùj by Ch. Pellat, who rather translated the maxim: Celui qui connaît sa nature devient dieu [320]. He did not notice, however, that an identical (French) translation had also been given by H. Corbin in his study Rituel sabéen et exégèse ismaelienne du rituel [321], probably for fear that such an observation could compromise his hypothesis about the Neoplatonist Academy’s survival in Harràn.

Actually we think that four virtual translations are simultaneously acceptable, though it is evident that, according to whether one chooses one translation or the other, the meaning of the saying, and consequently the Harranian position, must also change. We have already mentioned an excerpt from Seneca’s Epistle XCV (leaving apart the problem of Plato’s alleged authority) almost corresponding to the Harràn maxim, because it just goes as follows: Deum colit qui novit [322], without openly stating yet what it is the subject should know, whether God or himself; usually, however, the statement is interpreted in general terms, namely in terms of universal knowledge, and is quite reasonable. Moreover, such a translation is perfectly in accordance with Muslim religious needs, since a charge of impiety and/or heresy against a similar sentence (with the doctrinal background which it naturally implies, of course) could certainly not be brought, so that it could be displayed openly to the Islamic public without raising any scandal. Finally, most important of all, this choice enjoys a lot of (quasi-)equivalent expressions through the Hermetic literature, which is the cultural framework closest to the philosophical-religious position of the Harranian Sabians, if it is true that precisely Harràn was one of the most relevant motherhomes to Hermetism during the Middle Ages [323], while its learned men gave an exceptionally heavy impulse and new vital sap to the so-called Arabian Hermetism: we limit ourselves to quoting two items only, the first one by Lactance: è gàr eusèbeia gnòsisestì toù theoù (Piety is the knowledge of [the] God) [324], the second one contained in the Treatise IX of the Corpus Hermeticum: eusèbeia dè esti theoù gnòsis (Piety is God’s Knowledge) [325]; in these last sentences the meaning of the Senecan Epistle’s excerpt (and that of the Harranian saying too) appears in fact to be really the same, as it emerged already from R. Reitzenstein’s remarks about the Harràn maxim which 'gnosis und eusèbeia identifiziert [326].

It should not be forgotten that the idea of becoming God, of deifying oneself (but see Dante’s unusual verbal form indiarsi, also!) [327]belongs fully to Hermetic conceptions, and therefore we do not absolutely rule out that such a translation of the Arabic verb ta’allaha might be possible nor that Harranians had just this meaning secretly in mind by writing such a word upon the door of their great shrine; but it could not be proposed with such a sense to the Muslim neighbouring public [328], whereas the meaning to worship, to adore etc. (in a Monotheistic sense) is really plain and does not raise any sort of difficulty [329]. On the contrary, it seems to us that there are not enough elements allowing us to decide whether the knowledge mentioned in the first half of the sentence precisely refers to God or to one’s own nature. We propose, therefore, the following open translation which is, in any case, the natural issue of our whole discussion: Who knows His (of God) nature is a man who worships One (Most-High) God, and/or Who knows his (own) nature is a man who worships One (Most-High) God, where the final expression has to be rather rendered into the periphrastic form who is a (One Most-High) God-worshipper, or, even better, into the only word who is a Sabian.

A Strictly Etymological Proposal: the Accadian Noun Sàbu

As far back as 1649, the orientalist E. Pocock proposed for the first time the idea of identifying the Sabians with the worshippers of the heavenly army, the stars, to whom the Old Testament often make reference (sabà hash-shamayim) [330]. By advancing a similar proposal, the scholar had evidently in mind the astral Magic and generally the astrologic culture which, as a result of Maimonide’s opinion [331], was known as being the Sabians’ most remarkable feature: so no one wonders why many authors dealing with the Sabian enigma went on following his suggestions since that time, as for example the French student Michel Tardieu who simply appears to be the last exponent of this line of thought 330.

Actually the noun sabà means soldiers, army, military service 331, but we guess that, if the Hebrew root SBA – both in nominal and in verbal form – has really some connections with the historical beginnings of the Sabian question, it is absolutely not because Sabianism is an astral religion or a form of heavenly idolatry, since the Harranian Sabianism itself cannot be entirely reduced to that. It is very tempting, for example, to imagine that the word had some relations with the cult(s) practised in a military environment, namely within a human milieu made up of mixed ethnical elements, by various nationalities, where the strangers’ dominant presence was the rule rather than the exception 332. For the moment, however, without increasing what L. Massignon once felicitously called le roman syncrétistique des Sabéens 333 with other fruitless speculations, it is worth paying more attention to the semantic values of the Hebrew root, considering the literary sources which allow us to see more in detail its several practical uses. Following this theme, one is given a genuine surprise: through the Torah, in fact, the terms connected to this root systematically recur in relation with the particular priestly duties and privileges of Levi’s tribe. Let us read, for instance, chapter IV of Numbers, verses 1-3: And the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: ‘Take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, after their families, by the house of their fathers, from thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation’ 334.

It is not difficult to see the close semantic links between the military service and the special tasks imposed on the members of the Levite clan which can be paralleled because of the similarity that exists between the soldier’s heavy burdens and the Levite’ weighty responsibilities consisting in carrying out their sacerdotal duties in the Temple. But there is more than that. The concept of service seems in fact to recur not fortuitously through the available textual evidence about the Sabians, since we have to do with two items occupying a significant position in the already quoted Arabian manual of Magic Gayat al-Hakìm. The first one is a general definition of the Sabians, where it is said that they are nothing else but the Nabataean servants of Chaldaeans 335; in the Latin version of the work, the Picatrix, the whole expression is slightly different, but the semantic bulk of service remains unwavering: Zabii = servi capti Chaldaerum 336. The second text is relevant by itself, because it is part of the Gaya’s introduction to the Sabian planetary prayers: And among the operations of the Sàbians is what al-Tabari the astrologer says concerning the drawing down of the power of the planets. He says: ‘That which is known to me concerning the drawing down of the planets and their services which I found attributed to the leaders of the Sabians and the servants of the temples, is what I will say. They say …’ 337. We think that the Jewish linguistic background had certainly played a very remarkable role in modelling the Arabic verb(s) saba’a/sabà and upon the name(s) Sabian/Sabians connected with them, both from the point of view of the Hebraic wisdom and from the common usage of language, as we have learnt dealing with the root SHUBH and with some technical figures of the Hebraic culture like the gertoshàb, as well as with some proper names such as Elizabeth 338. From a strictly etymological point of view, however, we are convinced that, if all these linguistic elements are fully pertinent, they must be considered at the same time in terms of progressive semantic intersections, issuing with an ever-increasing meaningfulness from the original noun which we believe does not come from Hebrew.

At this point, we have become familiar with a wide semantic field, the general co-ordinates of which are expressed by terms and concepts such as People(s), Nation(s), Greek(s), Soldier(s), Stranger(s), Servant(s), etc.. Is there any coherence in that? We think so, mostly after having acknowledged the historical relationships between the particular roles played by these groups of people in reference to the prevailing religion according to the double-faced perspective according to which such a phenomenon was viewed in Late Antiquity, also beyond the frontier of the Roman Empire.

On the other hand, we have performed a short but essential survey about the third big Monotheistic community besides Jews and Christians occupying a significant place within the religious framework of Late Antiquity, the God-Fearers. Even if they did not define themselves by the same variety of names, we have observed a lot of technical terms in different languages by which their neighbours used to call and recognise these groups of believers: these expressions range from God-Fearers (Phoboùmenoi tòn Theòn, Metuentes Deum), God-Worshippers (Sebòmenoi tònTheòn, Theosebeìs, Colentes Deum), Heaven(s)-Worshippers (Yere’i ash-shamayim, Caelicolae), Devotees of the Most-High God (Hypsistarii, Hypsistiani), Those who pray (Massaliani), Those who bless (Euphemitai), Those who leave their religion (for another) (Hunafà’). Besides, one can add perhaps the other two expressions used for naming Christians which we were dealing with: Fearers (Tarsakàn) and The Servants (al-Ibàd).

The inter-linguistic antecedent parallel of the above observed Hebrew term sabà is, as it not seldom happens, an Accadian one. Let us read what the Chicago AssyrianDictionary accounts for: 'sàbu: s. masc.; group of people, contingent of workers, troop of soldiers, army, people, population; from OAkk. on; mostly used as a collective, pl. sàbù, for sàbiu (Oakk.) see discussion, stat. const. sàb and sàbi, wr. syll. and (LU)ERIN.MESH, ERIN.KHLA 340. At first sight the noun seems to be in perfect phonetic correspondence with the Arabic common plural Sàbi’ùn as well as with the collective plural Sàbi’a (and also with the more unusual forms Sàbùn, Sàba). Concerning the meaning, it is possible to imagine a semantic evolution someway similar to the well-known process undergone by the Hebrew noun gèr, whose primary meaning of stranger developed as a consequence of the deep changes within the Israelite society in the course of centuries, evolving therefore from the original social meaning and evolving towards the social-religious one of full convert to Judaism, namely of proselyte 341. Mostly because the Accadian noun does not fail to show a singular religious value linked – as far as we understand Dictionary’s quotations – to the activity of the temple’s specialized personnel 342. If the last one is really the true origin of the word, Arabic Sàbi’ùn would literally mean simply People, but with a particular religious nuance due to the numerous lexical intersections which we have met, the most important of which is surely that of leaving one’s religion in order to worship One Most-High God.

Conclusions

The strength of the idea of identifying the Sabians with the God-Fearers, namely the worshippers of One Most-High God, lies in the exceptional correspondence of the latter group not only with the three Koranic paragraphs mentioning Sàbi’ùn, but also with most of the Arab-Islamic sources of the Middle Ages, in spite of the often hazy, loose, or even contradictory nature of such information. As far as the Koran’s passages are concerned, we believe that the chains Muslims-Jews-Christians-Sabians (Sura II), Muslims, Jews, Sabians Christians (Sura V) and Muslims-Jews-SabiansChristians- Magians-Unbelievers (Sura XXII) should be understood in terms of a sketch-map of the Universal Religions, though not chronologically listed, in some way similar to the one contained in Aristide’s Apology or to the other one shown by the famous Kartìr’s Mid-Persian Inscription: consequently, we find it impossible that the place of the Sabian group within the Muslims’ Holy Book might be occupied by a simple sect such as Mandaeans, even if the last important work recently published on the subject by S. Gunduz goes on presenting this old theory once again. But an even more important reason why only God-Fearers appear perfectly able to take upon themselves the problematic identity of this community is that no other one possesses the singular features drawn by the definition of the Sabians often recurring in many literary sources, namely that they are a religious group which has no cult, scripture and prophet, admitting only the tawhìd, the profession of faith: ‘There is no god but God’. A religion with similar features is a kind of a paradox, but God-Fearers prove that the contrary is true: the available evidence about their beliefs and ritual practices, in fact, is quite meagre, as well as that about their gathering places, so that on the whole one can just state that they shared the universal code of moral-religious duties generally known by the label of Noachite laws.

We should remember that Noah’s Laws’ were also the limited set of observances foreseen by the Jerusalem Council (51 C.E.) for uncircumcised Christians (Ecclesia ex Gentibus). Together with other common religious features shared by both groups, this factor may explain why the first Latin translation of the Koran, fully corroborating our theory, seems not to distinguish completely between Christians and God-Fearers; the same things happened – as Pines demonstrated - in the regions where different Iranian languages were spoken, since the name for Christians in Persia is still today just Tarsakàn, Fearers: this historical confusion may suggest that the Sabians mentioned by Muhammad might perhaps be nothing else but an alternative name for Christians.

Our theoretical proposal is in accordance, besides, with another important traditional opinion about the Sabians, that they are a people who leave their religion (for another). Such an idea comes apparently from the Arabic root(s) SB’/SBW, but we have checked the Hebrew root SHWBH which it seems likely had a very significant influence upon the Arabic one(s). Al-Bìrùnì’s statement that the Sabians are the adherents of the prevailing religion is closely connected with this line of thought, even if it seems not to derive from lexicographic sources. Needless to say, the last definition just like the previous ones cannot seriously be applied to any existing religion, nor to a religious phenomenon such as Conversion. Surely one of the factors which played a crucial role in this sense, also from a linguistic point of view, was the existence of an original group such as the God-Fearers, who are not adequately defined by a name like Converts, but rather by that of Mid-Converts, or even better by one of the above recorded periphrastic expressions.

We have observed on the other hand the substantial closeness between God- Fearers and Hunafà’, who likewise are people in search of God without having any cult, scripture and prophet, generally following only the Noachite Laws. Yet there is perhaps one difference, namely that the latter are – as far as we know – just individuals, whereas the former are organized groups sharing the same Monotheistic faith, even if is not possible to rule out completely the existence of some scattered Hunafà’ communities.

Speaking about the Harranians, the Monotheistic nature of their beliefs has come to light not only in relation to the highly developed Neoplatonic system adopted by their learned men, whose apex is occupied by a transcendental God named the Most- High or the Lord of the High Building by the famous manual of Magic Gayat al-Hakìm (Picatrix), but also in connection to popular devoutness, as it is shown by the cultic place of Sumatar Harabesi not distant from Harràn, where in the middle of the II c. C.E. the Moon-God Sìn at the head of the local pantheon was worshipped bearing the title of Marilahé (Lord of the gods), an Aramaic expression which, as some findings in Hatra and Palmyra allow one to understand, is an equivalent of the Greek name Theòs Hypsistos.

Through our whole discussion a wide semantic field somehow connected to the Sabian question comes out, the general boundary-lines of which include words/concepts of different linguistic origin like Greek(s), People(s), Nation(s), Stranger(s), Soldier(s), Servant(s) etc. Meanwhile, many expressions used to name God-Fearers have emerged, including words/concepts like Changing One’s Religion for Another, (Mid-)Conversion, To Adhere to the Prevailing Religion, Symphatizers, Worshippers etc. in connection with a divine figure such as the Most-High God sometimes conceived as the Heaven(s). On the other hand, a possible link of the Hebrew root SBA (army, soldiers, but also religious service) with Arabic Sàbi’ùn had been proposed a long time ago. As a result of all these pieces of evidence, we believe that the parallel Accadian lemma sàbu (army, people, population etc.) might be a correct etymological solution for the word Sàbi’ùn: the original noun would have undergone a linguistic evolution somewhat similar to that of the Hebrew ger(which, from its primary social meaning of stranger, had ended up in the course of time denoting a social-religious figure such as a proselyte), by means of several linguistic intersections (Hebrew sabà, shubh, sabbàth, Elizabeth etc.) the most important of which is no doubt represented by the Greek verbs/nouns sèbein, sèbesthai, oì sebòmenoi, theosebeìs etc. whose technical sense is well known. Such a historical-religious process should have had a very reasonable issue, that is Sabians = People who leave their religion in order to worship One Most-High God.

The difficulty for identifying correctly the former subject is that only very recently has the historical weight of God-Fearers been fully acknowledged by scholars: having to face a sort of a double unknown-quantity equation (some scholars have even doubted their existence!), one cannot fail to wonder why the right solution of the problem was not found for a such long time. This point is closely paralleled by the non-acknowledgement of a crucial religious frontier, on the border of a phenomenon which one can call Pagan Monotheism, namely the ever increasing spread of the Theòs Hypsistos’ cult and of a popular Monotheistic culture in Late Antiquity, realities that on the contrary have to be viewed as the seed-bed into which Jewish and Christian theology could readily be planted. Without them the transformation of ancient patterns of belief … to … Judaism, Christianity and Islam might not have occurred at all.

Bibliography

AV = Arabic Version
ET = English Translation
FT = French Translation
GT = German Translation
LT = Latin Translation

  • AAWG = Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen
  • ABSA = Annual of the British School of Athens
  • AHDLMA = Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littéraire du Moyen Age
  • AJA = American Journal of Archaeology
  • ANRW = Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt
  • AO = Acta Orientalia
  • ARW = Archiv für Religionswissenschaften
  • AS = Anatolian Studies
  • BC = F.J. FOAKES JACKSON – KIRSOPP LAKE eds, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, TheActs of the Apostles, Vols. I-V, London 1926-33
  • BEO = Bulletin d’Études Orientales
  • BIFAO = Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archeologie Orientale
  • BThR = Biblical Theological Review
  • BZAW = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
  • CBQ = The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
  • CCIS = E.N. LANE, Corpus Cultus Iovis Sabazii,
  • EPRO, 100, Vols I-III, Leiden 1983-89
  • CH = Corpus Hermeticum
  • CIG = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum
  • CIJ = J.B. FREY, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum I-II
  • CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
  • CIS = Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum
  • CRAI = Comptes-Réndus de l’Académie des Inscriptions
  • CRAIBL = Comptes-Réndus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres
  • CSCO = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
  • DB = Dictionnaire de la Bible
  • EI = Encyclopedie de l’Islam
  • EI2 = Encyclopedie de l’Islam deuxième édition
  • EJ = Encyclopaedia Judaica
  • EphAn = Epigraphica Anatolica
  • EPRO = Études Preliminaires aux Religions dans l’Empire Roman
  • ERE = Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics
  • ErJb = Eranos Jahrbuch
  • ETSE = Études Slaves et Est-Europeennes/Slavic and East European Studies
  • GAS = F. SEZGIN, Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums, Leiden 1967-84
  • GCS = Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriststeller der ersten drei Jahrunderte
  • GGR = M.P. NILSSON, Geschichte der Griechischen Religion
  • GLAJJ = M. STERN, Greek and Latin Autors on Jews and Judaism, I-III, Jerusalem 1974-84
  • GPJ = V. TCHERIKOVER, A. FUKS, M. STERN, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum I-III
  • GRBS = Greek, Roman and Bizantine Studies
  • HALAT = Hebraisches und Aramaisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament
  • HR = History of Religions
  • HSCPh = Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
  • HTR = Harvard Theological Review
  • HUCA = Hebrew Union Annual CollegeI
  • GLS = Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la SyrieI
  • GR = R. CAGNAT et alii, Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes
  • ILCV = E. DIEHL, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres, Berlin 1961
  • IOS = Israel Oriental Studies
  • JA = Journal Asiatique
  • JE = The Jewish Encyclopaedia
  • JHS = Journal of Hellenic Studies
  • JIWE = D. NOY, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe
  • JJS = Journal of Jewish Studies
  • JPOS = The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
  • JQR = Jewish Quarterly Review
  • JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
  • JRS = Journal of Roman Studies
  • JSGRP = E.R. GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, New York 1953-65
  • JSJ = Journal for the Study of Judaism
  • JSNT = Journal for the Study of the New Testament
  • JSocS = Jewish Social Studies
  • JSS = Journal of Semitic Studies
  • JThS = The Journal of Theological Studies
  • JWCI = Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
  • MB = Musée Belge
  • MIDEO = Melanges de l’Institut Domenicain d’ Études Orientales
  • MUSJ = Melanges de l’Univerté de St. Joseph
  • MW = The Muslim World
  • New Documents = New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity
  • OGIS = Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. DITTENBERGER, Leipzig 1903-1905
  • PBA = Proceedings of the British Academy
  • PCPhS = Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
  • PG = J.P. MIGNE, Patrologia Greca
  • PIASH = Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
  • PL = J.P. MIGNE, Patrologia Latina
  • POC = Proche Orient Chrétien
  • PS = Patrologia Syriaca
  • RA = Revue Archéologique
  • RAC = Reallexicon für Antike und Christentum
  • RB = Revue Biblique
  • RE = PAULY-WISSOWA, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
  • REJ = Revue des Études Juives
  • RFIC = Rivista di Filologia e d’Istruzione Classica
  • RHE = Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique
  • RHR = Revue de l’Histoire des Religions
  • RIDA = Revue International des Droits de l’Antiquité
  • RIPB = Revue de l’Instruction Publique en Belgique
  • RN = Revue Numismatique
  • ROSCHER’s Lexicon = W. ROSCHER, Lexicon der griechischen und romischen Mythologie
  • RTPh = Revue de Theologie et Philosophie SCHURER-VERMES-MILLAR-GOODMAN,
  • History of the Jewish People = E. SCHURER, TheHistory of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, A New English Version * Revised and Edited by G. VERMES, F. MILLAR, M. GOODMAN, Edinburgh 1973 - 1986
  • SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
  • SEP = Studien zur Epigraphic und Papyruskunde
  • SJLA = Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
  • SPAW = Sitzungberichte der koniglich preussischen Akademie dew Wissenschaften
  • SI = Studia Islamica
  • ST = Studia Theologica
  • TLZ = Theologische Literaturzeitung
  • TWAT = Theologische Worterbuch zum Alten Testament
  • TWNT = Theologische Worterbuch zum Neuen Tetament
  • VC = Vigiliae Christianae
  • ZAW = Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
  • ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
  • ZNW = Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenshaft
  • ZPE = Zeitschrift für Papirologie und Epigraphik
  • ZS = Zeitschrift für Semitistik und Verwandte Gebiete

Generally the Works are quoted in the original language, and the translation is cited thereafter. When we quote a title in the original language, we refer to the original edition of the text; when we quote the translation, we refer to the translated work (es.: AL-BALADHURI, Futùh al-buldàn, ed. Beirut 1398 H./1978, ET by P.K. HITTI, The Origins of the Islamic State, New York 1916: ALBALADHURI, Futùh al-buldàn = AV; AL-BALADHURI, The Origins = ET.

References

  1. The literature about the subject is enormous. We record here just some of the relevant studies chronologically predating a basically turning-point such as Aphrodisia; most of the other ones will be quoted in the course of discussion: E. SCHURER, Die Juden im bosphoranischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der sebòmenoi theòn hypsiston ebendaselbst, Sitzungsberichte der koniglich preussischenAkademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Berlin 1897, pp.199-225; K. LAKE, Proselytes and G-d Fearers, in F. FOAKES JACKSON - K. LAKE eds., The Beginnings of Christianity, I, The Acts of Apostles, Vol. 5, London 1933, pp.74-96; G. BERTRAM, art. Theosebès, TWNT III, pp.124-8; L. FELDMAN, Jewish ‘Sympathizers’ in Classical Literature and Inscriptions, TAPA, 81 (1950), pp.200-8; L. ROBERT, Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes, I, Paris 1964, pp.39-45; K. ROMANIUK, Die Gottesfurchtigen im Neun Testament, Aegiptus 44 (1964), pp.66-91; T. KLAUSER, 'Synagogé tòn Ioudaìon kaì Theosebòn. Die Aussage einer bosporanischen Freilassungschrift (CIRB 71) zum Problem der ‘Gottesfurchtigen’, JAC 8/9 (1965), pp.171-6; B. LIFSHITZ, Du Nouveau sur les Sympathisants, JSJ 1 (1970), pp.77-84; F. SIEGERT, Gottesfurchtige und Symphatisanten, JSJ 4 (1973), pp.109-64.
  2. For the choice of a technical term such as God-Worshippers instead of God-Fearers (because of the evident connection of the latter expression to a Jewish background) see P. R. TREBILCO, JewishCommunities in Asia Minor, Cambridge 1991, p.246 n.1: ‘God-worshipper’, a translation of theosebès, … is a more appropriate term than ‘God-fearer’, a translation of phoboùmenoi tòn theòn, which occurs only in Acts; cf. T. RAJAK, Jews and Christians as Groups in a Pagan World, in J. NEUSNER - E. S. FRIERICHS eds., To See Ourselves as Others See Us, Chico California 1985, p.255. See also SIEGERT’s important study Gottesfurchtige und Sympthisanten quoted above (n. 2), containing the best survey, at that date (1973), of the literary and epigraphic witnesses about God-Fearers. In the chapt. 13th of the Book ofActs, Luke intentionally replaces the latter expression with the former, which thereafter does not appear any longer in the text. As M. WILCOX (The ‘God-Fearers’ in Acts: a Reconsideration, JSNT 13 [1981], p.118) rightly stresses: "The changeover from phoboùmenos tòn theòn to sebòmenos tòn theòn corresponds to a shift in emphasis in Acts from the basically Torah-centered piety of the earlier part to the Gentile mission of the later section … The fact suggests that their use and distribution matches Luke’s intention in his portrayal of events. When we use God-Fearers, therefore, we employ the expession in a non-rigid sense. For the Fear of God in the Old Testament culture see G. NAGEL, Crainte et Amour de Dieu dans l’Ancien Testament, RThPhil 23 (1945), pp.175-86; B. OLIVIER, La Crainte de Dieu comme Valeur Religieuse dans l’Ancien Testament, in Les Etudes Religieuses, Paris 1960, p.66 (… crainte de Dieu, qui recouvre comme dans tout le mouvement sapientiel l’ensemble de la pieté, de la vie morale, d’une religion de la fidelité interieure) and passim; H. BALZ, art. 'Phobèo, phobèomai', TWNT IX, mostly pp.197-216.
  3. We use the expression exactly in the following technical sense: God-Fearers = People of pagan origin worshipping the Most-High God, without investigating which kind of relation they had with the Jewish religious milieu. We follow therefore S. MITCHELL, The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews and Christians, in P. ATHANASSIADI - M. FREDE, Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford 1999, p.119: 'Theosebès was a specific, technical term used to describe themselves by the worshippers of Theos Hypsistos. It served to identify them both among themselves and to the outside world. The prefix theoshould not be understood in a loose sense as referring to any god, but precisely to the highest, the one and only god, whom they revered. There are many scholars thinking that the epithet Hypsistos does not necessarily imply Jewish influence: A.D. NOCK - C. ROBERTS - T.C. SKEAT, The Guild of Zeus Hypsistos, HTR 29 (1936), pp.64-9 (repr. in A.D. NOCK, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, I, Oxford 1972, pp.414-43); L. ROBERT, Reliefs Votifs et Cultes d’Anatolie, Anatolia 3 (1958), pp.119; T. DREW-BEAR, Local Cults in Graeco-Roman Phrygia, GRBS 17 (1976), pp. 248; S. M. SHERWINWHITE, A Note on Three Coan Inscriptions, ZPE 21 (1976), p. 187; G.H.R. HORSLEY, New DocumentsIllustrating Early Christianity, I, Macquarie University 1976, p. 26; E. N. LANE, Corpus MonumentorumReligionis dei Menis, III, EPRO 19, Leiden 1976, p.94; M. SIMON, Jupiter-Yahwé, Numen 23 (1986), pp.40-66; M. TATSCHEVA-HITOVA, Eastern Cults in Moesia Inferior and Thracia (5th Century BC – 4thCentury AD), EPRO 95, Leiden 1983, pp.203-4 and 211-15; E. BERNARD, Au Dieu très Haut, in Hommages à Jean Cousin. Rencontres avec l’Antiquité Classique, Institut Felix Gaffiot, I, Paris 1983, pp 111; S. E. JOHNSON, The Present State of Sabazios Research, ANRW II, 17.3, pp. 1606-7; Yulia USTINOVA, The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom. Celestial Aphrodite and the Most-High God, Leiden 1999, pp.183-287.
  4. For the scholars who, in spite of all, do not agree with this opinion see below n. 9.
  5. The discovery was made during the preparations for construction of the Aphrodisias Museum, in connection with the excavation on the site conducted by Prof. Erim, sponsored by New York University and supported by National Geographic Society. First archaeological reports by Prof. K.T. ERIM himself in AJA 81 (1977), p.306, and AS 27 (1977), p.31.
  6. J. REYNOLDS - R. TANNENBAUM, Jews and God-Fearers at Aphrodisia, PCPhS, Suppl. Vol. 12 , Cambridge 1987, edited and commented the original Greek text (cf. J. LINDERSKY’s Review, Gnomon 63 (1991), p.561: … our inscription is a treasure): for osioi theosebìs see p.6, face B, l.35 (two theosebès are also mentioned at p.5, face A, ll.19-20: Commentary pp.48-67; for proselytes see below, p.24 and ns. 207-8. For a short account of the event by the same Authors, see Jews and God-Fearers in the Holy City of Aphrodite, BThR 12.5 (Sept.-Oct. 1986), pp.54-7. Aphrodisia’s discovery suddenly moved the general pattern about God-Fearers, lighting again the discussion onto the subject to a great extent: WILCOX, op. cit. (above n.3); M. SIMON, art. Gottesfurchtiger, RAC XI, cols. 1060-70; Th. M. FINN, The God-Fearers Reconsidered, C BQ 47 (1985), pp.75-84; J. G. GAGER, Jews, Gentiles, and Synagogues in the Book of Acts, HTR 79.1-3 (1986), pp.91-99; L. H. KANT, Jewish Inscriptions in Greek and Latin, ANRW II, 20.2, Berlin 1987, pp. 671-713; E. SCHURER, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, A New English Version Revised and Edited by G. VERMES, F. MILLAR, M. GOODMAN, III, 1, Edinburgh 1986, chap. 5; L. H. FELDMAN, Proselytes and ‘Sympathizers’ in the Light of the New Inscriptions from Aphrodisia, REJ 118.3-4 (Jul.-Dec. 1989), pp.265-305; Idem, Jews and Gentiles in theAncient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian, Princeton 1993, pp..342-382 (The Success of Jews in Winning ‘Symphatizers’ ; notes pp.569-80); TREBILCO, Jewish Communities in AsiaMinor, pp.145-66; J. M. LIEU, The Race of the God-Fearers, JThS 46 (1995), pp.483-501. Irina LEVINSKAYA’s The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting (The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, Vol. 5), Grand Rapids 1996, pp.51-126, no doubt contains the most complete and exaustive survey of the evidence, even if the full list and discussion of the literary documents is furnished by Feldman, in his second study above cited.
  7. The key-word in the original Greek text is read patella by REYNOLDS-TANNENBAUM, Jews andGod-Fearers, p.27, and consequently interpreted in terms of a ’distributory station for charity food’ – i.e. ‘a community soup kitchen’. Such a place is also called samhui in the rabbinical sources … The institution was current at the earliest likely date of our inscription [about the half of the III c. C.E.] in Palestine Jewish communities. Both the word’s reading and the date proposed by the authors have been criticized: the issues of the discussion are uninteresting for our purposes, so that we limit ourselves to quote the dense lemma 918, SEG 41 (1991), pp.302-3, where many useful references are given; add Margaret H. WILLIAMS, The Jews and Godfearers Inscription from Aphrodisia – A Case of Patriarchal Interference in Early 3rd Century Caria?, Historia 41.3 ((1992), pp.297-310; H. BOTERMANN, Griechish-judische Epigraphic: zur Datierung der Aphrodisias-Inschriften, ZPE 98 (1993), pp.184-94 (where 2 proselytes and 3 theosebeìs are wrongly counted, instead of the reverse); P. van MINNEN, Drei Bemerkungen zur Geschichte des Judentums in der griechisch-romischen Welt, ZPE 100 (1994), pp.253-258; Marianne PALMER-BOLZ, The Jewish Donor Inscriptions from Aphrodisias: Are They Both Third-Century, and Who Are the Theosebeis?, HSCPh 96 (1994), pp.281-299. For the socio-religious class of donors see the classical Donateurs et Fondateurs dans les Synagogues Juives, B. LIFSHITZ ed., Paris 1997.
  8. A.T. KRAABEL is no doubt the scholar who with most convinction continued to argue strongly that the various expressions usually translated as God-Fearers (sebòmenoi/phoboùmenoi [tòn theòn], theosebeìs,metuentes etc.) cannot be interpreted as technical terms, in spite of the clear evidence coming out from Aphrodisia; moreover, he put in doubt the historical reliability of Luke’s picture of the facts mentioned in Acts. See his several provoking (cf. the definition ‘enfant terrible’ given to him by LEVINSKAYA, op. cit. [above n.7], p.21) articles: The Disappearance of the God-Fearers, Numen 28 (1981), pp.113-26; The Roman Diaspora: Six Questionable Assumptions, JJS 33 (1982), pp.445-64; Synagoga Caeca: Systematic Distorsion in Gentile Interpretation of the Evidence for Judaism in the Early Christian Period, in NEUSNER-FRERICHS eds., To See Ourselves as Others See Us; Greeks, Jews and Lutherans in the Middle Half of Acts, in G.W.E. NICKELSBURG - G. MacRAE eds., Christians among Jews and Gentiles:Essays in Honour of Krister Stendhal on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (= HTR 79 [1986]), pp.147-157; (with S. Mc LENNAN) The G-d-Fearers – A Literary and Theological Invention, BThR 12.5 (Sept-Oct. 1986), pp.46-53. J. MURPHY- O’ CONNOR, Lots of God-Fearers? Theosebeis in the Aphrodisia Inscription, RB 99.2 (1992), pp.418-24, shares the same opinions of Kraabel, as well as R.S. KRAEMER, On the Meaning of the Term ‘Jew’ in Graeco-Roman Inscriptions, HTR 82.1 (1989), pp.35-53, in spite that the inscription from ancient Aphrodisia has been read by a number of scholars as the definitive evidence against Kraabel’s interpretation (ibid. p.36 n.4).
  9. That is the title of a J.B. SEGAL’s popular article: The Sabian Misteries. The Planet-Cult in Ancient Harràn, in E. BACON ed., Vanished Civilizations: Forgotten Peoples of the Ancient World, London 1963, pp.201-20. The author, who is one of the few contemporary students having been deeply concerned with the Sabian culture, wrote several works about the subject: Pagan Syriac Monuments in the Vilayet of Urfa, AS 3 (1953), pp.97-119; Mesopotamian Communities from Julian to the Rise of Islam, PBA 41 (1955), pp.109-39; Edessa and Harràn. An Inaugural Lecture Delivered on 9 May 1962, London 1963; Edessa,The Blessed City, Oxford 1970.
  10. About the theoretical connection Peoples-Religions, see below p.23 and n. 195.
  11. About Harràn is worth while remembering at least the quite recent essay of Tamara M. GREEN, TheCity of the Moon-God. Religious Traditions of Harràn, Leiden-New-York-Koln, 1992, that is the only existing monograph entirely dedicated to this city and its very original inhabitants so strongly linked to their noble religious traditions (G. FEHERVARI’s article Harràn, EI2, III, pp. 227-230, is an useful instrument for approaching the subject). Our Harràn. La Luna e la Religione dei Filosofi (Rome 1991), treats the same matter in a more popular way.
  12. D. CHWOLSON, Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, St. Petersburg 1856 (= Amsterdam 1965): this big two volumes work (the second one including only text and commentary of the historical sources) counts 1745 pages!
  13. Sura 2, 62; 5, 69; 22, 17. We shall use the Qur’an’s translation of M.M. ALI, Translation of the HolyQuran, Lahore 1934.
  14. About the Harrànian Sabians, beyond the titles already listed, we quote here for the moment: B DODGE, The Sabians of Harràn, in F. SARRUF - S. TAMIM eds., American University of Beirut Festival Book, Beirut 1967, pp.59-85; J. TUBACH, Im Schatten des Sonnengottes, Wiesbaden 1986; C. BUCK, The Identity of the Sàbi’ùn: An Historical Quest, MW 74 (1984), pp.172-86; Th. FAHD, art. Sàbi’a, EI2, VIII (1986), pp.694-8; M. TARDIEU, Sàbiens coraniques et ‘Sàbiens’ de Harràn, JA 274 (1986), pp.1-44; F. De BLOIS, The ‘Sabians’ (Sàbi’ùn) in Pre-Islamic Arabia, AO, 56 (1955), pp.39-61. For the persisting duration of the Sìn’s cult at Harràn, the essays published in connection with the Turkish-British archaeological campaign on the site going back to the past sixties are still useful: S. LLOYD-W. BRICE, Harràn, AS 1 (1951), pp.77-111; D.S. RICE, Medieval Harràn. Studies on its Topography and Monuments I, AS 2 (1952), pp.36-83; but see also the same authors’ popular reports come out onto TheIllustrated London News 222 (21th Feb. 1953), pp.287-9 (Seeking the Temple of Sìn') and 231 (21th Sept. 1957), pp.466-9 (From Sìn to Saladin). For the religious history of the Sumerian Moon-God, see E. COMBE, Histoire du culte de Sin, Paris 1908; A. SJOBERG, Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumerischenUberlieferung, Stockolm 1960 .
  15. The book of S. GUNDUZ, The Knowledge of Life. The Origins and Early History of the Mandaeansand Their Relation to the Sabians of the Quràn and to the Harranians, JSS Suppl. Vol. 3, Oxford 1994 is the last scientific contribute to such a theory which has never failed to get some supporters. Among the most convinced ones, we can certainly record K RUDOLPH and Lady E.S. DROWER who have consecrated to Mandaeans all their scholarly life (abundant bibliography upon both authors’ works in GUNDUZ, ibid., pp.239-40 and 246-7): their theoretical position is winded up in a jiffy by TARDIEU, Sàbiens, p.6 and n.16.
  16. IBN AL-NADIM, Kitàb al-Fihrist, ed. G. FLUGEL, Leipzig 1872; ET by B. DODGE, The Fihrist of al-Nadìm, New York-London 1970, pp.751-3. A similar version of the facts, even if much shorter than that, is given by HAMZA ISFAHANI, Ta’rìkh sinì mulùk al-ard wa l-anbiyà’, LT by I..M.E. GOTTWALDT, Petropoli-Lipsiae, 1848, p.3; and by AL-KHWARIZMI, Mafàtih al-‘ulùm, ed. G. Van VLOTEN, Lugd. Bat. 1895, p.36 (= CHWOLSON, op. cit., II, p.504 and p.506). Though not changing the information’s bulk, it seems us quite interesting the Greek word (= neighbourhood, proximity) quoted in brackets by the English translator of AL-BIRUNI, The Chronology of Ancient Nations, ed. and ET by E. SACHAU, London 1879, p.314 f.: The same name is also applied to the Harrànians … although they themselves did not adopt this name before A.H. 228 under Abbasid rule, solely for the purpose of being reckoned among those from whom the duties of Dhimma (metoikìa) are accepted and towards whom the laws of Dhimma were observed. Before that time they were called heathens, idolaters, and Harrànians. For the connection pàroikos (= mètoikos) – ger - proselyte, see SCHURER-VERMES-MILLAR-GOODMAN, The History of the JewishPeople, III, 1, p.170 n.78 (with abundant items from Talmud and Mishnah’s writings): The word [ger] is originally equivalent to pàroikos, advena, but later a convert to Judaism – nomìmois proselelytòs toìsIoudaikoìs, Ant. xviii, 3, 5 (82).
  17. CHWOLSON, Die Ssabier, I , chap. 5 (Ueber die babylonischen Ssabier im Coràn oder die Mendaiten), pp.100-38. The Russian orientalist accepts an idea previously proposed by J.D. MICHAELIS, Orientalischen Bibliotek, Vol. 13, Frankfurt 1778, p.30 and Vol. 18, 1782, p.52, p.54, and by M. NORBERG, De Religione et Lingua Sabaeorum Commentatio, Comment. Soc. Reg. Societ. Gott., Vol. III, 1781 (cf. CHWOLSON, op. cit., I, p.66 ff.).
  18. 19
  19. 20
  20. 21
  21. 22
  22. 23
  23. 24
  24. 25
  25. 26
  26. 27
  27. 28
  28. 29
  29. 30
  30. 31
  31. 32
  32. 33
  33. 34
  34. 35
  35. 36
  36. 37
  37. 38
  38. 39
  39. 40
  40. 41
  41. 42
  42. 43
  43. 44
  44. 45
  45. 46
  46. 47
  47. 48
  48. 49
  49. 50
  50. 51
  51. 52
  52. 53
  53. 54
  54. 55
  55. 56
  56. 57
  57. 58
  58. 59
  59. 60
  60. 61
  61. 62
  62. 63
  63. 64
  64. 65
  65. 66
  66. 67
  67. 68
  68. 69
  69. 70
  70. 71
  71. 72
  72. 73
  73. 74
  74. 75
  75. 76
  76. 77
  77. 78
  78. 79
  79. 80
  80. 81
  81. 82
  82. 83
  83. 84
  84. 85
  85. 86
  86. 87
  87. 88
  88. 89
  89. 90
  90. 91
  91. 92
  92. 93
  93. 94
  94. 95
  95. 96
  96. 97
  97. 98
  98. 99
  99. 100
  100. 101
  101. 102
  102. 103
  103. 104
  104. 105
  105. 106
  106. 107
  107. 108
  108. 109
  109. 110
  110. 111
  111. 112
  112. 113
  113. 114
  114. 115
  115. 116
  116. 117
  117. 118
  118. 119
  119. 120
  120. 121
  121. 122
  122. 123
  123. 124
  124. 125
  125. 126
  126. 127
  127. 128
  128. 129
  129. 130
  130. 131
  131. 132
  132. 133
  133. 134
  134. 135
  135. 136
  136. 137
  137. 138
  138. 139
  139. 140
  140. 141
  141. 143
  142. 142
  143. 144
  144. 145
  145. 146
  146. 147
  147. 148
  148. 149
  149. 150
  150. 151
  151. 152
  152. 153
  153. 154
  154. 155
  155. 156
  156. 157
  157. 158
  158. 159
  159. 160
  160. 161
  161. 162
  162. 163
  163. 164
  164. 165
  165. 166
  166. 167
  167. 168
  168. 169
  169. 170
  170. 171
  171. 172
  172. 173
  173. 174
  174. 175
  175. 176
  176. 177
  177. 178
  178. 179
  179. 180
  180. 181
  181. 182
  182. 183
  183. 184
  184. 185
  185. 186
  186. 187
  187. 188
  188. 189
  189. 190
  190. 191
  191. 192
  192. 193
  193. 194
  194. 194 bis
  195. 195
  196. 196
  197. 197
  198. 198
  199. 199
  200. 200
  201. 201
  202. 202
  203. 203
  204. 204
  205. 205
  206. 206
  207. 207
  208. 208
  209. 209
  210. 210
  211. 211
  212. 212
  213. 213
  214. 214
  215. 215
  216. 216
  217. 217
  218. 218
  219. 219
  220. 220
  221. 221
  222. 222
  223. 223
  224. 224
  225. 225
  226. 226
  227. 227
  228. 228
  229. 229
  230. 230
  231. 231
  232. 232
  233. 233
  234. 234
  235. 235
  236. 236
  237. 237
  238. 238
  239. 239
  240. 240
  241. 241
  242. 242
  243. 243
  244. 244
  245. 245
  246. 246
  247. 247
  248. 248
  249. 249
  250. 250
  251. 251
  252. 252
  253. 253
  254. 254
  255. 255
  256. 256
  257. 257
  258. 258
  259. 259
  260. 260
  261. 261
  262. 262
  263. 262 bis
  264. 263
  265. 264
  266. 265
  267. 266
  268. 267
  269. 268
  270. 269
  271. 270
  272. 271
  273. 272
  274. 273
  275. 274
  276. 275
  277. 276
  278. 277
  279. 278
  280. 279
  281. 280
  282. 281
  283. 282
  284. 283
  285. 284
  286. 285
  287. 285 bis)
  288. 286
  289. 287
  290. 288
  291. 289
  292. 290
  293. 291
  294. 292
  295. 293
  296. 294
  297. 295
  298. 296
  299. 297
  300. 298
  301. 299
  302. 300
  303. 301
  304. 302
  305. 303
  306. 304
  307. 305
  308. 306
  309. 307
  310. 308
  311. 309
  312. 310
  313. 311
  314. 312
  315. 313
  316. 314
  317. 315
  318. 316
  319. 317
  320. 318
  321. 319
  322. 320
  323. 321
  324. 322
  325. 323
  326. 324
  327. 325
  328. 326
  329. 327
  330. 328
  331. 329