|
Since we know that the word drabša is of Persian origins, is it right therefore to conclude that the word and object both were acquired by the Mandaeans after they settled in the Persian control area of Mesopotamia? Widengren writes
"Eminently important to dating the beginning of the Mandaean scriptures is the fact that many loan-words and linguistic adaptations indicate a feudalistic Parthian world." (5)
So it is evident that the introduction of the Parthian words is an important puzzle in the ultimate goal in discovering the Mandaean origins. Being a Parthian loan word may give more clues to dating the Mandaeans. Now if drabša is a Parthian loan word then the adaptations would have had to taken place before the fall of Parthia in 224 AD. This is importent for the dating of the various elements in Mandaean theology.
We know that when Mani incorporated some of the Mandaean theology into the religion, the baptism acts were already formed. (6) Thus we must conclude that the drabša, since a crucial element at most ceremonies, would have been in place at the baptisms before the birth of Mani. .
If we take into account that all of the central acts of the Mandaean baptism demonstrate a strong connection to the west and that the drabša is present at all Mandaean baptisms, could the word have had come into Mandaean contact prior to the exodus from Jerusalem.
The terms used in the baptismal act center on the (Yarden) Jordan such as TMS ( root for immerse) // NHT (the root for descend) // rusma (signation) // SQA (the root for drinking of the water) // misa (oil) // klila (myrtle wreath) // and kusta (imposition of the hands) are all of western origin.(7)
The drabša is consecrated in special ceremonies and is planted in the river bank prior to the actual baptisms. There are 20 prayers dedicated to the drabša in The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans called the banner hymns. (8) Yet what is interesting is that the drabša is never mentioned in in the Ginza Rba.(9) Being absent from mention in the Ginza Rba could give credence to the theory that the drabša was introduced after the flight to Mesopotamia. But then again—it could be the simple fact that there was no need in the Ginza to mention the drabša. |
|