Talk:Mandaeism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Assertion not supported by reference[edit]

Text - There is some suggestion made by some authors that Mandaeanism was formed post-Christianity as opposed to pre-Christianity, contrary to what the Mandaeans themselves claim.[11]

Reference - 11 - Etudes mithriaques 1978 p545 Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin "The conviction of the leading Mandaean scholars – E. S. Drower, Kurt Rudolph, Rudolph Macuch – that Mandaeanism had a pre-Christian origin rests largely upon the subjective evaluation of parallels between Mandaean texts and the Gospel of John".

A skilled author could actually make the claim that Judaism was formed post-Christianity and support it but the above quote does nothing of the sort. It asserts that authors that Mandaeanism was formed post-Christianity but it is unsupported by the provided reference!

I suggest that it is removed or edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Edited! I kept the reference but reworded it so that the citation is correctly represented in the text. It seems it is easier for some kind of Christians if the Mandeans are some kind of heretics that left Christianity, but I think it is the other way around, whether we like it or not (which I don't, but facts are facts). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of inflammatory references[edit]

"...but reject Abraham, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth."

Mandaeans face enough sectarian violence without drawing more hatred towards them, based on someones interpretations of the religion.

I don't see anyone listing all the negative interpretations of texts associated with Islam, or any of the other religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csc300h (talkcontribs) 19:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't blank information referenced to reliable sources. If you have counter-references claiming that the information is incorrect or contested, they can be considered for addition as another viewpoint. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a valid reason to blank references. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Lack of References[edit]

Could someone provide references to the various sections mentioned. There seems to be a severe lack of references in some areas (in particular to citation or qoutes).

-Bill

Sun June 3, 2007

Out of curiosity I keyed "Mandaean" to see what is available about this group. I found this entry in Wikipedia. I started reading only to stop very abruptly early in the narrative when I read something to the effect that the group is now extinct. Being a Mandaean myself and of priestly lineage -although I never adhered to religious rituals - I was totally taken aback by that statement.

The Mandaeans are not extinct, although they are scattered all over the world in small groups. There is also a strong resurgence of interest in the rituals, and language. You will find us everywhere. My relatives are in the United States, England, Sweden, France, Poland, Russia, NewZealand, Australia, Germany, Spain.

Why did we leave Iraq? Someone here asked that question. I very strongly recommend that that someone should enlighten himself or herself on minority conditions in that country since the invasion.

Those who are interested in knowing something about us, I would refer you to "The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran" by Drower. For additional information on the myths -I recommend her translation of "The Secret Adam". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshneh (talkcontribs) 02:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph[edit]

"Most Iraqi Mandaeans have since fled the country under the threat of violence by other Iraqis and the turmoil of the war."

Why are they under threat of violence, and what other Iraqis are we talking about? Christians, Yazidis...or Muslims? The people and ideology responsible for this persecution should not be glossed over in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.179.230.10 (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes why (in the name of God)? I think there are not sources available for providing an explanation. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

False Messiah[edit]

more biography about false messiahs--Yolycool (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Asia Times online article[edit]

"Mandaeans in struggle for existence". __meco (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Translation[edit]

With regard to "anush utra" do we know what this translates to? (Beyond utra meaning, in essence, angel/messenger of god) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.11.237 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Orientalists?[edit]

Terms of abuse are undesirable, even if they were invented in the twentieth century; and Nicolas Siouffi was an Oriental; a Syriac Orthodox employed by the French. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you consider the purely descriptive term "Orientalist" to be a "term of abuse" and therefore undesirable, and at the same time employ the term "Oriental" to describe Siouffi? How does Siouffi's religion preclude him from being an Orientalist? 64.131.213.1 (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


From Gnosticism article[edit]

Is this correct:

Among the Mandaeans Jesus was considered a mšiha kdaba or "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John the Baptist.[1] Still other traditions identify Mani and Seth, third son of Adam and Eve, as salvific figures.[2]

? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We should need citations for both sentences, although I've heard often that they disown Jesus as a false prophet. I've never ever heard that they revere Mani. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It is correct. You can read the Mandaean text here. It also refers to Muhammad, the Islamic Prophet, as "the Son-of-Slaughter , the Arab," "the most degraded of false prophet", "the Seal of prophets of the Lie", and also says he "converted people to himself by the sword". --AxisAbove (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect you mistake the talk page for a forum. We're just discussing Wikipedia content. For the rest: the Mani statement is removed, and the Jesus-false-prophet belief is properly sourced. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Macuch, Rudolf (1965). Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: De Gruyter & Co. pp. 61 fn. 105. 
  2. ^ "The Gnostic World View: A Brief Introduction". The Gnosis Archive. Retrieved 2009-02-12. 

Possible origin[edit]

Recent research on Pagan Monotheism suggests a widespread heterogeneous group of 'God-worshippers' known by various names* existed in late antiquity throughout the Roman Empire. The marker in identifying Mandaeans as one such group are the Haranian Sabians, which share the name Sabian, similar gnostic beliefs and who have been identified as Pagan Monotheists.

  • Hypsistarii, Sebomenoi, Theosebeis, Caelicolae & etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.185 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"Their origin" bogus[edit]

Section Mandaean history boldly claims:

Their origin seems ultimately have been with the Ebionite Elchasai, who preached to an Abrahamic community called "Sobiai" in Parthian ruled Assyria (Asuristan).[citation needed]

I think [citation needed] is the understatement of the year, [dubious – discuss] is better, but [what'e'heck, this seems like a wildly speculative and obviously wrong statement!] is more conclusive.

It is indeed very unlikely that the Mandaeans were directly connected with any kind of Ebionites, who perused a Jesus gospel somewhat similar to Matthew. Mandeans regard Jesus as a false prophet. Their teachings and texts doesn't have anything in common with any Christian texts, nor anything of what today is regarded as Gnostic corpus (retracted by myself). They revere John the Baptist as Yahya the Prophet, and that is the only commonality. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Link[edit]

This link should be used. Many of the links provided present very POVvy (especially the gnostic ones) and slightly misleading stories. Personally I think that the Mandean story, cosmology and history stands for itself, and don't need to be shoe-horned into imagined heritages of either heretic christians (ebionites), jews, proto-theosophists or gnostics. Mandeans are Mandeans, and that should be enough. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Where's Daniel Jackson when you really need him?[edit]

Can somebody add what language "mšiha kdaba" is from...? Teal'c of Chulak kree, Mar-Vell 16:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Abraham & Moses[edit]

Why do the Mandaens reject Abraham & Moses?--Splashen (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Because they are considered Jewish patriarchs, thus connected with Judaism--Rafy talk 02:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So? That didn't stop Christianity & Islam from taking them on. But, thanks for the answer.--Splashen (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they were an obvious targets for anti-Jewish polemics by the Mandaeans, who reject the Bible as well. You can read more in my unfinished draft.--Rafy talk 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for sharing.--Splashen (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mandaeans today paragraph and introductory paragraph[edit]

The Mandaeans today paragraph and introductory paragraph cover the same information. The Mandaeans today paragraph is less detailed and therefore redundant. It maybe should be expanded on or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.73.99 (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Coming of Age[edit]

Do Mandaens have any Coming-of-Age rites or ceremonies? If so, what are they?--Splashen (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Mandaean Cross" picture requires explanation[edit]

"Mandaean cross" (darfash)

The article features a picture identified as "'Mandaean Cross' (darfash)", but nothing in the text refers to any such emblem or device; nor does any other article on Wikipedia mention the "Mandaean cross" or the "darfash". If the Mandaeans employ a cross among their religious symbols, that fact would be of great interest to the history of Christianity, as well as to that of Mandaeism itself. The article should elucidate. Otherwise, the picture is merely a perplexing puzzle. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

New "Symbols and rituals" section[edit]

To give the picture of the Darfash a home, I have added a new section on symbols and rituals. Unfortunately I don't know anything about Mandaean symbols or rituals, so somebody else will need to fill up the section with relevant information. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"AD" or "CE"?[edit]

An anonymous editor, hiding behind various IP addresses, persists in changing "CE" ("Common Era") in this article's dates to "AD" ("Anno Domini" = "Year of Our Lord"). In the academic study of religions, it has become customary in the English-speaking tradition to use "CE" for dates in the present era, and "BCE" ("Before the Common Era") for dates in the previous era, out of respect for non-Christian religions. This usage should apply throughout Wikipedia, even in articles on Christianity; but it especially should apply in articles on non-Christian religions, such as Mandaeism.

The anonymous editor contends that his or her revision is appropriate because the Mandaeans "revere John the Baptist, a Christian prophet". This overlooks the fact that Mandaeism regards Jesus of Nazareth with hostility as an apostate. John the Baptist is also a Muslim prophet, but I daresay the anonymous editor would not contend for using the Muslim practice of dating years since the Hijra. Wikipedia is not a place for religious testimony. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


Jayaguru-Shishya's edits[edit]

I don't know about others' responses to Jayaguru-Shishya's edits, but I think that removing what s/he thinks are 'overlinks' is way beyond what ought to be done on this article. I personally believe STRONGLY that these edits ought to be reverted because they REDUCE the utility or usefulness of this article to a newbie reader. MaynardClark (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I am sorry if you feel that way. Do you have any specific edit(s) / part of edit(s) in your mind? With most of my edits, there's been a serious issue with overlinking; whether there has been duplicate linking, or then the links have been directing to a whole different article compared to what the concept is even about. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
If MaynardClark strongly believes that Jayaguru-Shishya's edits should be reverted, he (I presume) is free to revert them, and Wikipedia policy is, "Be bold!" It is a bit shocking to see so many wikilinks bite the dust at one time, but having skimmed the article since, I can't say that I miss them. I take it most of what J-S deleted were duplicates. As long as all the arcane terms and obscure references get one wikilink apiece, I'm happy for duplicate links to go. And if the other links J-S deleted were to unrelated concepts, then the article is well rid of those, too.
I have, however, reverted two of J-S's revisions, namely the deletion of the "Symbols & Rituals" section, and the removal of the "Mandaean Cross" image from that section. The section is not really empty, because it contains that picture. I created the section to house the picture, in hopes that some knowledgeable person would fill in more information about the darfash and other symbols employed by the Mandaeans. I still think the section should remain, even though nobody has granted my wish. If the section is to be deleted, though, the picture of the darfash should also be deleted, because without any explanatory text the picture is meaningless to non-Mandaeans, and is in fact likely to be misleading, the cruciform symbol suggesting an affinity with Christianity which does not exist in fact. Maybe J-S would devote some of his or her abundant energy to reading up on Mandaean symbols and rituals, and give us some content for that section? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There are more than a few reference works which have reasonably long articles on this topic which could be used to help determine WP:WEIGHT and other matters in this, the main article on the topic. Anyone interested could ask for copies of such reference work articles, and other articles and works available on some of the subscription databanks currently involved in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library at WP:RX. John Carter (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your proposal, J. D. Crutchfield! Actually, I'd be interested in trying to contribute to the "Symbols and Rituals" section. I think I have enough time to delve into the matter and start hunting for sources on Sunday, till that my week is pretty hectic though. Would you be interested in trying to find a source or two with me? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation, but I really don't have time for another project at the moment. If I can help with proof-reading and copy-editing I'll be glad to do that much. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Abrahamic religion?[edit]

Definition of abrahamic religions, per article:

Abrahamic religions (also Semitic religions) are monotheistic religions of West Asian origin, emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him.

Mandeism does not seem to fit. Editor2020, Talk 01:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, Editor2020. It seems to me that Mandaeism sure does recognize Abraham, as well as many other characters derived from other Abrahamic religions, but they just consider him to be a false prophet. So it seems to me they have rather unique emphases on the importance they give for these Abrahamic figures.
Well, Mandaeans are Semitic at least, so perhaps Mandaeism can be considered a Semitic religion, and this way an Abrahamic one as well, although they do not seem to recognize Abraham and derive their lineage from him in the strictest sense. Just thoughts. :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
"Abrahamic religion" refers to the religions which hail from Torah/Bible related religions & cults, I guess. The term may seem self-evident, but may not be that precise, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-expert, regarding the first line of the definition quoted at the beginning of this comment, historically, weren't some early Semitic religions polytheistic? If so, you can't say that "Semitic religions" were monotheistic. Corinne (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC) See Canaanite religion. Corinne (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I can not believe that , there is no evidence[edit]

Michael

1- I do not think religion Mandaean religion from God

2- I think Mandaean pagan + Modern religion are taken from other religions

3- I think the books Mandaeans,. ... Stories of fantasy

I'm sure of that

I think the Mandaeans writing in Wikipedia, to make a certificate from Wikipedia, should not deceive others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.24.68 (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. According to 1898 Encyclopaedia Britannica[1] (Tenth edition?) "The existence of the Mandaeans has been known since the middle of the 17th century ...". Unless you mean you just do not subscribe to their beliefs, which is your prerogative. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Access to source: Fontaine, P. F. M. 1990. The Light and the Dark: Dualism in ancient Iran, India, and China.[edit]

Greetings! Does anyone has access to the source:[1]

Fontaine, Petrus Franciscus Maria (1990). The Light and the Dark: Dualism in ancient Iran, India, and China. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. ISBN 9789050630511.

It would be highly appreciated :-) Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mandaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

A Wikilink for Jesus?[edit]

Jayaguru-Shishya removed the wikilink from the first mention of Jesus, leaving links for Moses and others. I reverted the change, giving my reason. Instead of discussing the issue here, the editor chose an edit war and re-reverted the change, citing, in the edit summary, "WP:OVERLINK (Jesus)". I decline to participate in an edit war. There was no overlinking with respect to "Jesus": the editor removed the only link to that article on the page. She or he might have argued that the lede had too many links, but that would have required her or him to remove more links than just the one to "Jesus". Jayaguru-Shishya needs to revert his or her edit-warring, and then explain here why, out of all the wikilinks in the lede, the one to "Jesus" ought to be removed. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Jdcrutch. "Jesus" is marked as an WP:OVERLINK in the Ohc script, and personally I do agree since he is the main character of the most wide-spread religion in the world. For your relief, I've asked for an opinion by the script's author, User:Ohconfucius[2]. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)
I'm not going to discuss this until Jayaguru-Shishya stops edit-warring and restores the status quo ante. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

An anonymous IP has restored the link, and Jayaguru-Shishya has not reverted it, so I assume the edit war is over, and discussion may proceed.

I can easily believe that "Jesus" may be overlinked in many articles, but WP:OVERLINK isn't about Wikipedia as a whole: it's about individual articles. In this article, there is only one link to "Jesus", at the first mention of that person. Except for its being in the lede, where arguably links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:LEADLINK), the link is entirely appropriate, and should not be removed. This case illustrates the importance of human judgment in the use of scripts and other automated tools. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The script is constructed to remove links from common words that are most frequently linked by editors whether or not these links are appropriate. The script was written to be run on thousands of articles on diverse subject matter, and the strategy employed is the blanket removal of identified common terms. It does its job fairly well in the vast majority of cases that I have come across personally. Although unlinking is broad-brush, I do not imply that words in the whitelist ought never to be linked. Common terms may indeed be suitably linked in specific instances. I expect individual editors might relink words removed by my script in specific contexts, and that is indeed something that I myself often do.-- Ohc ¡digame! 21:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius: I think it's inevitable that, as here, the script is going to be regarded as normative. That is, here, an editor used the script to de-link "Jesus" even though the link was appropriate, and when another editor (I) reverted the change, re-reverted it, citing the script as authority. I see the utility in de-linking massively overlinked terms with a script or bot, but this is clearly a problem. I would suggest that, at a minimum, the script's author add a notice to users that the script will de-link commonly-linked words, even where links are appropriate, and that they should make some attempt to restore appropriate links, or, at the very least, allow other editors to restore them. It would also be more consistent with WP:OVERLINK if the script were changed to leave any link alone if it's the only link for a given term in a given article, since WP:OVERLINK applies to excessive linking within individual articles, not across Wikipedia as a whole. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Kindly note that there is already a warning to that effect on the script documentation page. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Users who trouble themselves to read the whole page will indeed be informed that the script may de-link terms where links are appropriate, but I would hardly call that a warning. What I had in mind was more along the lines of a text box that would pop up every time the script was used, saying something like, "CAUTION! This script will remove links even if they're appropriate. Users should exercise judgment, and restore links consistent with Wikipedia policy." J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


In this particular case, regarding Jesus, I also tend to think that the main Jesus article probably gets linked to a little too often around here. Part of that could be addressed by developing the content on that subject better, particularly with the creation of the whole range of directly relevant subarticles which could or should exist. Might it be that one of the spinout articles for Jesus might be a more useful link for the reader? John Carter (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am inclined to run with John Carter here. A spinout article might be one, an anchor or a more specific link to a sub-section might another if it's relevant for the article in question. But Jesus alone, I don't really it that useful for the reader. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to doubt whether there is any need for more sub-articles on Jesus. When I restored the link to "Jesus", I considered John Carter's question, but decided that, as the reference to Jesus was generic (i.e., simply to him as a religious figure, like Moses, not to any particular aspect of the man or the myth), it was best simply to link to the general "Jesus" article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the number of subarticles or related articles on Jesus, considering that there more than one specific reference works devoted exclusively to the topic of Jesus, including the Historical Dictionary of Jesus here, and the Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus here, I think that there are probably still several articles in those works which we don't yet have here. Regarding this particular link, I get the impression myself that whichever article goes most in depth on the broad topic of Jesus in gnosticism, which itself might be significant enough and notable enough for a separate article, is maybe the best and most useful one to link to here. John Carter (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The reference to Jesus under discussion is this:
Its adherents, the Mandaeans, revere Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah, Shem, Aram, and especially John the Baptist, but reject Abraham, Moses and Jesus.
I would respectfully point out that it's about Jesus as a religious figure generally, comparable to John the Baptist, Abraham, and Moses—not about Jesus as a figure in Gnosticism, or any other specific aspect or conception of Jesus. I therefore think that a link to the most generic article on Jesus is appropriate here. A link to an article on "Jesus in Gnosticism" might be appropriate in connection with the later discussion of Mandaeism's beliefs about Jesus:
Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a mšiha kdaba "false messiah"[fn] who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John
if that discussion were broadened somewhat to bring in other Gnostic religions; but I think the link in the lede should remain generic. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mandaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Abel and Seth in Mandeism[edit]

It seems Mandeanism suppose Abel and Seth to be Uthras (angels), not prophets (for example, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibil). So they should be removed from the list of saints. May be, the best solution is two lists: for saint humans and for saint spiritual beings, like Hibil, Ptahil or Abatur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.233.180 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mandaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)