The problem with thinking it’s in any way derived from how Sabeans of Yemen were referred to is that the Quran does refer to them explicitly in Surah 27 and Surah 34. So they are distinct. The "I" coming right after after the B is what really makes it distinct.
Daniel Chwolsohn in 1856 suggested it’s derived from an Aramaic word meaning “To Dip” or “To Baptize”. This fits well with other theories I support about some of the Quran being at least indirectly of Aramaic origin. Another proposed Etymology is that it comes from the Arabic word Sabi meaning “to turn to” and thus means “Converts”. Perhaps both are true, perhaps it’s a pun combining them to refer to people for whom Baptism and Conversion are the same, for observers of Believers Baptism.
Others interpreting the meaning of the word in that Baptism context argue it refers to the Mandeans. The Mandeans rejected Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus and thus did not revere any of the Books necessary to qualify as “People of The Book”, nor are they Monotheist by even the loosest sense. Also they only existed in Iraq back then and in fact didn’t come into contact with Muslims till after they Conquered parts of Iraq in 633-640. It seems they only started calling themselves Sabians in order to co-opt this Quranic term and appropriate “People of the Book” status.
To repeat myself, I am not a Landmark baptist in the doctrinal sense of thinking that an unbroken chain of Believers Baptism back to the Apostles matters. But I do believe there have always been Christians who came to the correct conclusions on Believers Baptism and other distinctly Baptists views like Congregational Polity and Freedom of Conscience.
The World Translated “Christians” in English Translations of the Quran is Nasara or Nasrani. Nazarenes is a term used for Christians in Acts 24:5, by the late 4th Century Epiphanais of Salamis and Jerome were using it specifically for Jewish Christians who still kept Torah in Aleppo and Bashan. These Narzarnes do teach Jesus was the Son of God and do consider Canonical the entire New Testament and consider Paul a valid Apostle unlike the Ebionites they are sometimes confused with. But I do think Ebionites may have also called themselves Nazarenes. Liturgically Aramaic Christians sometimes use a variation of Nazarenes instead of Christians even while being Gentiles with no Torah observance at all.
The term Mishrikun often translated as “Idolaters’ or “Pagans” actually means “Aosciators”. I can’t entirely agree with those who argue Paganism was already dead in Arabia well before Muhammad was born, but Christianity or Judaims had become the majority and dominant religion all over the Peninsula. Shirk “Associating a Human with Allah” is something the Quran considers the Jews, Nasara and probably Sabians all guilty of in their own way. But it’s possible each are smaller groups not as bad as the unqualified Musrikun which I think mainly referred to the Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christians who held the actual political power in Western Arabia. The Ghassanids and Banu Kalb were both Miaphysites and the Kingdom of Kinda were likely either Miaphysite or Chalcedonian as Byzantine Foederati.
The idea that the Sabians are particularly tied to the Psalms came from later Islamic speculations. While the Psalms of David are the only Book besides the Torah and Gospel specifically mentioned in the Quran no verse says there were a people of the Palms specifically.
It might be that the Sabians aren’t linked to a specific Book because they are the ones who have a high enough view of Scripture to revere them all equally. While the Jewish-Christian Nazarenes prioritize The Gospel of Matthew and the Jews the Torah.Mean while the High Church Mushrikun placed their ecclesiastical tradition above Scripture entirely which might be why they’re kind of excluded from being People of The Book. Another trait the Sabians would today share almost only with Credo-Baptist Denominations.
No comments:
Post a Comment