"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.<ref>[http://www.ricerchefilosofiche.it/ God-Fearers: A Solution to the Ancient Problem of the Identity of the Sabians]</ref>
==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.
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>.
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>.
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>.
==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>.
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.
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.
==Eusèbeia and Gnòsis==
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 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.
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''.
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.
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 ''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>.
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>.
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>.
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.
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''.
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==
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42 Changes - Wikinoah English
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
