The Early Tradition of the True Prophet and Menahem in Jewish Christianity

[Ahanu]

Mani, a Jewish Christian raised in the Elchasai community, is a name that is really a short form of the Jewish name Menahem, meaning Comforter.

The Journal of Jewish Studies cited a historical example from the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim: a 4th-century rabbi from Tiberias named Menahem was "usually abbreviated to Rabbi Mana or Mani."

The Elchasaites were a faction of the Ebionites. The Elchasaites believed in a "cyclic incarnation of the True Apostle." This "True Prophet" doctrine is also a highlight of a major source for Ebionite belief, the Pseudo-Clementine Literature (Homilies and Recognitions).

Wherefore I advise that we should first seek His Justice so that when we shall travel thereon, as if on a highway, we shall be able to overtake the True Prophet, not by swiftness of feet, but by good deeds. . . . Be it known to you, therefore, the highway is good discipline and deeds and the travelers of the highway are those who do good things. But the gate is the Prophet and the city is the Kingdom, wherein the Father eternally sits before everyone and makes ready to be seen by those who have pure hearts. Therefore, it should not weary us to travel on the highway, for at the end of the highway there is rest. For even he, the True Prophet, from the beginning of the world hastens us to rest and runs with us to eternity. – The Travels of Peter: The Syriac Clementine Recognitions and Homilies: The First Complete Translation of the Text, by Joseph Glen Gebhardt (Grave Distractions Publications, 2014), pp. 107–108 (Syr. Rec. 2:22).

Here we have an example of an old Christian tradition connected to an old Jewish tradition. The Talmud asks: "What is his [the Messiah's] name?" Some say Shiloh, some say Yinnon, some say Ḥanina, but some say:

"Menaḥem ben Ḥizkiyya is his name, as it is stated: 'Because the comforter (Menaḥem) that should relieve my soul is far from me'" (Lamentations 1.16).

As Abdu'l-Baha's analysis shows, Baha'is are deeply connected to this tradition, and I would argue early Christianity, before it spread beyond its Jewish roots, is too. This fits perfectly with Abdu'l-Baha's argument that "He shall not come unless I go away," because the second Comforter could not be present on Earth at the same time as Jesus since he is another person. Since the Holy Spirit was always co-existing with Christ, the promised Comforter must be a different entity.

Κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν Πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον Παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν... (Kagō erōtēsō ton Patera kai allon Paraklēton dōsei hymin...) (John 14.16)

Jesus promised to send "another Comforter." The Greek word here is allos, which means "another of the same kind." Since Jesus, the first Comforter, was a human person, the use of allos here implies the second Comforter will also be a human person of the same kind.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Jesus promised to send "another Comforter." The Greek word here is allos, which means "another of the same kind." Since Jesus, the first Comforter, was a human person, the use of allos here implies the second Comforter will also be a human person of the same kind.

Were Jesus and the Holy Spirit both referred to as the comforter in either scripture or tradition of the Christian church?

 

[Thomas]

Hi @Ahanu – good to see you again!

I hadn't come across this group, so had a quick look round on things. The two sources I used are the article on the Alchasai in the Encyclopædia Iranica which described the Alchasai as "a sectarian in the early Christian Church, 1st-2nd centuries CE, in the time of Trajan." Britannica describes them as a "Jewish sect" and the JewishEncyclopedia as "A Judeo-Christian sect of Gnostic tendencies" – we're into those very early centuries where there was no precise borders or definitions of movements or orthodoxies.

The Jewish Encyclopedia points out that:
"The Elcesaites based their doctrine on a book which they claimed either had fallen from heaven, or had been given by an angel to Elkesai at Seræ, Parthia, Elkesai then giving it to Σοβιαΐ ("the Baptist"; from

)."

"... in fact the creed of the Elcesaites contains such a mixture of Jewish, Christian, and pagan elements that a classification of the sect is extremely difficult. They must be regarded as Jewish because they expressly insisted on "the rule of the Law," and held that "the faithful must be circumcised and live according to the Law" (Hippolytus, "Hæreses," ix. 14).(emphasis mine)

The Christo-Messianology of the book is very ambiguous. The Messiah is conceived, on the one hand, as an angel of giant dimensions ... and, on the other hand, the doctrine of the continuous incarnation of the Messiah from Adam to Jesus (see Adam Ḳadmon) is taught."

The Encyclopædia Iranica points out that:
"In Mesopotamia (then Babylonia, now generally, Iraq) ... Alchasai founded a Jewish Christian baptist community, a faction in the Ebionite movement."

"(T)he "Cologne Mani Codex," a miniature parchment manuscript (4.5 by 3.5 cm) containing a biography of Mani in Greek, translated from a Syriac original of the 5th century... titled Peri tēs gennēs tou sōmatos autou "On the origin of his [Mani’s] body" and views the doctrine of Alchasai from a Manichean standpoint... Mani’s youth is placed in an environment of Elchasaism, the religion of his father Pattikios ... Mani’s final breach with the sect came after his second revelation."

The Elchasaite sect never gained great historical importance, although it attempted a push in Rome about A.D. 220 through Alkibiades from Apamea in Syria (Hippolytus Ref. 9.13.1-3). Thereafter it seems to have submerged into other baptist movements, and in that way survived into the 10th century.

"The main purpose of the (Cologne) Codex is to demonstrate that Mani was the reformer of the original teaching of Alchasai, who had been violently misunderstood by his followers. This claim, no doubt, is a hagiographic pia fraus, a purely Manichean interpretation. But Mani did learn from the Elchasaites."

"The primary importance of the Cologne Codex is that it convincingly underlines the character of Manicheism as a religion rooted in a Christian (Judeo-Christian/Judeo-Gnostic (but the anápausis of Elchasaism, the eternal rest of the body, removes the latter far from gnosticism)) tradition and not primarily an Iranian mystery religion ... although Iranian elements play no small part in the forming of Mani’s gnostic religion. The text also shows that the apparent "Mandean" influence on Manicheism (cf. the Psalms of Thomas) must be interpreted as indirect, stemming from the common general baptist milieu, out of which also the Mandeans emerged. "

 

[Ahanu]

Were Jesus and the Holy Spirit both referred to as the comforter in either scripture or tradition of the Christian church?

Orthodox Christians read the Gospel of John through a Trinitarian lens (a core belief that I think rests on shaky ground). They believe Jesus is the first Paraclete (1 John 2.1). The Holy Spirit is the second ("another") Paraclete mentioned in John 14. The word "another" shows that both share the same divine nature.

Jesus's incarnation was a unique, once-for-all event. The Holy Spirit's coming at Pentecost was the start of a new mission. This new mission involved indwelling all believers. It could only begin after Jesus's physical mission on Earth was finished.

Their view rests on John 14.26 as one of their strong proof texts. That verse states: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost..." This text defines the Comforter's identity as the Holy Spirit. This definition is literal. Any other verses that seem to contradict it must be read symbolically.

Abdu'l-Baha reads the text quite differently. He views the verses in John 16 as the literal key. These verses describe the Comforter's function and timing. He hears and speaks like a prophet. He is also not yet present. These descriptions are literal.

This reading means the verse in John 14.26 must be symbolic. The Comforter is a future human prophet, so he cannot be the same as the ever-present Holy Spirit. Jesus was a human who perfectly embodied the Holy Spirit. The new Comforter will be another human, a perfect repository for that same Spirit.

Abdu'l-Baha's view here fits perfectly with the Ebionites, for they believed the Holy Spirit is not a distinct divine person. Instead, it is God's empowering force bestowed upon a human prophet.

 

[Thomas]

The Elchasaites were a faction of the Ebionites. The Elchasaites believed in a "cyclic incarnation of the True Apostle."

A belief common among Jews, Christians and pagan Gentiles was that the 'One True God' was behind all theophanies. Of course this idea would find particular expression within the various groups.

As Abdu'l-Baha's analysis shows, Baha'is are deeply connected to this tradition, and I would argue early Christianity, before it spread beyond its Jewish roots, is too.

I think to argue early Christianity was deeply rooted to this tradition is an overstatement, as the Elchasaites are themselves difficult to pin down. It was one among many, but I would not consider it particularly significant.

In his paper: Mani's Baptists and the Elchasaites, Gerard Luttikhuizen argues that "the baptists of Mani’s youth were somehow related to this Syrian-Transjordan Jewish Christianity, and, furthermore, that Mani borrowed his idea of the repeated manifestation of the Apostle of Light from these Jewish Christians.

As the Jewish Encyclopedia notes:
"They lived in the region beyond the Jordan ... The Elcesaites, then, represent the stage of transition from those Jewish sects to the Christian heresy of the Sampsæans—as a section of the Elcesaites was called at the time of Epiphanius—and to those circles in which the Clementine Homilies originated, the doctrines of which are very similar to those of the Elcesaites; but while the pagan and Jewish elements preponderate over the Christian among the Elcesaites, in the Clementine Homilies the reverse is the case..."
As all these groups were meeting and rubbing shoulders, they existed in a state of flux into which we get occasional glimpses. The pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions belong to 3rd/4th century 'Christian romance' literature with a broad popular appeal.

The Book of Elchasai was written around the Parthian War of 114–117CE in Aramaic by a Mesopotamian Jew (Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels, Petri Luomanen, Brill. pp.42–44, 49). The purpose of the book may have been an apocalyptic text to bring comfort to Jews surviving the massacre during the war. The book describes angelic beings of "stupendous" size and their announcement of universal destruction. Similar enormous angels are also described in 3 Enoch, but Elchasai is particularly describing Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Book underwent a century of Hellenist revision as the Parthian War faded into the background, and the version used by the Syrian Jewish Christians incorporated a wider syncretic theology.

It's a real tangle ...

Since the Holy Spirit was always co-existing with Christ, the promised Comforter must be a different entity.

That's not how John saw it, nor how Christians understood it – rather, every divine entity exists within the compass of a triune relation, understood from the get-go in the triune baptism, and later expressed as the Father wills, the Son redeems, the Spirit sanctifies.

Κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν Πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον Παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν... (Kagō erōtēsō ton Patera kai allon Paraklēton dōsei hymin...) (John 14.16)
Jesus promised to send "another Comforter." The Greek word here is allos, which means "another of the same kind." Since Jesus, the first Comforter, was a human person, the use of allos here implies the second Comforter will also be a human person of the same kind.

No, I don't think that's right. The adjective refers to the noun parakleton, so Jesus means another Advocate/Comforter/Helper, not another human person:
"And I shall entreat the Father, and he will give you another advocate, that he may be with you throughout the age, the Spirit of the truth, which the cosmos cannot receive because it neither sees nor knows it; you know it because it abides with you and will be within you." (John 14:16-17)

 

[Thomas]

Abdu'l-Baha reads the text quite differently.

As is his right. A Trinitarian would, of course, dispute his assumptions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

As is his right. A Trinitarian would, of course, dispute his assumptions.

There is no such thing as a "trinitarian" Jew .. in a religious sense.
In a racial sense, they could even be a Hindu or Muslim.