MANI and MANICHEISM. —
I. LIFE
Mani was born at Mardin or Afrunya in Babylonia on 14 April 216. His name is of Aramaic origin; the form Manichaeus derives from the Syriac: *Mānī ḥajā* = “Mani the living” (a Gnostic terminology; cf. the self-designation current among the Naassenes in Hippolytus, *Ref.*, V, 8, 31 ff.). His father Patek (*Patig, Patekios*) came from Hamadan (Ecbatana) in Media and belonged to the ruling family of the Arsacids. His mother Mariam also descended from a royal line.Mani, therefore, although born in Babylonia, was of Persian origin and of noble family. His father in Babylonia had become an adherent of a baptist sect of encratite character (*nuqtasilah*), whose followers were called “pūri” and wore white garments. Their encratism corresponds to Christian encratism. They were probably Christians, but not identical with the Mandaeans (cf. E. Peterson, *Virgiliae christianae*, Amsterdam 1949; a different interpretation in H.-Ch. Puech, *Le manichéisme*, etc., Paris 1949, p. 41 ff.). Raised in this environment, Mani later separated from the baptists. From the *Kephalaia*, VI, ed. cited below, p. 33, 31 ff., it appears that the disagreement concerned the matter of baptism: water, which for Mani belonged to the evil world (perhaps on the basis of a tradition of the marionettes?). Indeed, Manichaeism rejected baptism with water (Puech, *op. cit.*, pp. 87, 180 ff., nn. 363, 364). But the break with the baptists was probably also connected with a revelation he had received at the age of twelve, the age of discretion, when perhaps the religious struggles of the baptists began. The Twin Spirit (Paraclete) appeared to him and revealed to him the whole Truth (cf. Puech, *op. cit.*, p. 42 ff.). Preferable is the description given in the *Kephalaia*, I, pp. 14, 30 ff., to that of the *Fihrist*, which speaks of two revelations. The figure of the Twin Spirit is known from the *Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles* (cf. E. Peterson, *op. cit.*, pp. 156-60). It may perhaps be said that the separation from the baptists led Mani to the group of radical encratites who replaced baptism with water by the experience of the Pentecostal Spirit and who were not averse to accepting private revelations. Around the years 240-42 Mani was in India (*Kephalaia*, I, pp. 15, 24 ff.), more precisely in Turan and Mekran (modern-day Baluchistan), where the king, seeing in Mani the true Buddha, converted to Manichaeism (H.-Ch. Puech, *op. cit.*, p. 45). From India he returned (by sea) to Persia, summoned by King Shapur and recommended by the king’s brother, Pērōz, who had become an adherent of Mani. The meeting, which probably took place on 9 April 243 (Puech, *op. cit.*, p. 46), was favorable to Mani. He was granted freedom to preach throughout Persian territory. In the king’s retinue (*comitatus*), Mani also took part in the war against the Romans (probably against Valerian, 256-60). The freedom of worship under Shapur I gave Mani the opportunity for extensive missionary travels within Persian territory. After the death of Shapur I and with the accession to power of his second successor Bahrām I (274-77), the situation changed. The king was under the influence of the Magi, led by the *mōdē* (priest) Kartir, who accused Mani of destroying the Mazdean religion. The heresiarch was imprisoned and died after 26 days of suffering, probably on Monday, 26 February 277 (ibid., p. 53), in prison. In Manichaean tradition his martyrdom is called crucifixion, although Mani did not undergo the penalty of the cross. For his followers the “apostle” suffered the death of Jesus, an idea not unknown to the *Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles* (cf.).
II. THE WRITINGS OF MANI AND THE MANICHEANS
Manichaeism had seven canonical writings: 1) the *Sāpurākān*, a book written by Mani in the Persian language (*Pahlavi*) and dedicated to Shapur; 2) the *Living Gospel*; 3) *The Treasury of Life*; 4) *The Pragmateia* (Treatise); 5) *The Book of Mysteries*; 6) *The Book of Giants*; 7) *The Letters*. These six writings were composed in Syriac (Eastern Aramaic; Puech, *op. cit.*, pp. 67 and 149, n. 262). A kind of semi-canonical character must be attributed to the *Kephalaia* and the *Epistola fundamenti* (of the latter, known among the Manichaeans in North Africa, it seems that a Chinese treatise, still unpublished, speaks; Puech, *op. cit.*, p. 149, n. 262). Fragments of the *Book of Giants* have been published by W. B. Henning in *Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies* (11 [1943], pp. 52-74), the *Kephalaia* by Polotsky and Böhlig (Stuttgart 1936-39). Our knowledge of Manichaeism has been significantly increased by the discovery of Manichaean texts in the Coptic language (cf. C. Schmidt and H. J. Polotsky, *Ein Mani Fund in Aegypten* [Sitzungsber. Berlin. Akad. 1933, 1]), of Manichaean texts in various languages found in Turkestan (cf. loc. cit., F. W. Müller, *Handschriftenreste in Estrangelo-Schrift aus Turfan*, in *Abhand. Berlin. Akad. 1904*; F. C. Andreas-W. Henning, *Mitteliranische Manichäica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan*, I, II, III, *Sitzungsber. Berlin. Akad. 1932, 1933, 1934*; W. Henning, *Ein manichäisches Bet- und Beichtbuch*, in *Abhandl. Berlin. Akad. 1936, n. 10*; E. Waldschmidt-W. Lentz, *Die Stellung Jesu im Manichäismus*, ibid., 1926 [Manichaean texts in Chinese]; id., *Manichäische Dogmatik aus chinesischen und iranischen Texten. Sitzungsber. Berlin. Akad. 1933, 13*; for other publications by Henning cf. Puech, *op. cit.*, p. 150, n. 263; ibid. also on a new text of Manichaean texts in Chinese). Of Manichaean writings in the Coptic language there have been published: H. J. Polotsky, *Manichäische Homilien* (Stuttgart 1934); C. R. C. Allberry, *A Manichaean Psalmbook*, II (ibid. 1938); cf. T. Säve-Söderbergh, *Studies in the Coptic Manichaean Psalm-Book* (Uppsala 1949). In the light of this new material, the Manichaean excerpts in Theodore bar Kōnaj (8th cent.) can now be studied (cf. H. Pognon, *Inscriptions mandaites* [Paris 1898-99]), in the *Fihrist* (= catalogue) of Muḥammad b. an-Nadīm (d. 995) cf. G. Flügel, *Mani* (Leipzig 1862); the *Acta Archelai* ed. Beeson (ibid. 1906) and the notices in al-Shahrastānī, Alexander of Lycopolis, Titus of Bostra, Simplicius and especially St. Augustine (the anti-Manichaean writings in CSEL, 25, Vienna 1891-92, also contain: Evodius, *De fide*).III. EXPANSION
There is no up-to-date study of the expansion of Manichaeism. For its propaganda in the West cf. Em. de Stoop, *Essai sur la diffusion du manichéisme dans l’Empire Romain* (Ghent 1909). On Manichaeism in Muslim countries cf. H. H. Schaeder, *Manichäer und Muslim*, in *Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellschaft*, 82 (1928), p. 76 ff.; G. Vajda, in *Rivista degli studi orientali*, 17 (1937), p. 173 ff.; U. Pestalozza, *Il manicheismo presso i Turchi occidentali ed orientali*, in *Rendiconti del R. Istituto lombardo di scienze e lettere*, 67 (1934), pp. 417-97. On its diffusion in Central Asia and the Far East cf. P. Pelliot, in *Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses*, new series, 3 (1912), pp. 97-119 and: *Les traditions manichéennes au Fou-kien*, in *T’oung Pao*, XXII, Paris 1923, p. 193 ff.; W. Henning, *Neue Materialien zur Geschichte des M.*, in *Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft*, 90 (1936), p. 1 ff. Particularly noteworthy is that the Turkish people of the Uighurs in the Turfan region adopted Mani’s religion up to the 12th century.IV. DOCTRINE
Mani’s teaching is based on the concept of a continuing prophecy, which, however, under the influence of the Christian religion, set a limit to the arrival of new messengers from the celestial world. The coming of the Paraclete,Mani signifies the end of the world and the conclusion of the mission of these messengers. From this perspective, Mani remains tied to the Christian tradition. The doctrine of continued prophecy is known from the ideas of the Jewish Christians (v. lastly: H. I. Scheeps, *Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums*, Tübingen 1949, pp. 87-116, 335-340). It is also found in the Gnosticism of the Sethians (v. the [Syriac] *Book of the Caverns* and the Coptic Gnostic book *Revelation of Adam to his Son Seth*,
V. H
Ch. Puech, in *Coptic studies in honor of W. E. Crum*, Boston 1950, p. 137).This must have been a speculation either Jewish or Jewish-Christian that Mani would have known in Mesopotamia. The names of the messengers in the list vary according to circumstances. Sometimes they include the names of the patriarchs of the Old Testament, sometimes also the names of Zoroaster, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, Jesus, etc. (v. Ch. Puech, *Manichéisme* cit., p. 144 ff). Mani distinguishes himself from his predecessors in his role as Paraclete and seal of the prophets and apostle of the last generation. Mani took the term "apostle" from the Christian tradition, but broadened the concept of apostle perhaps under the influence of the *Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles*. From the same source comes his conviction of the ecumenical nature of his mission. The self-designation of Mani as apostle of Jesus Christ at the beginning of his epistles is clear evidence that Mani did not intend, as is often attributed to him, to found a new religion, but rather to bring the Christian Revelation itself to its ultimate fulfillment.
One can, to a certain extent, interpret Mani’s mystical illumination by framing it within the ideas of the heretics in Mesopotamia. Mani, who did not accept married life, became an apostle and, as such, received the Paraclete, the Spirit and twin. The Paraclete made him hear the voice of God and taught him the whole truth (v. *John 15:26, 16:12*). The mystical union with the Paraclete, which, according to the *Kephalaia* (p. 16, 23 ff.), made him “one body and one spirit” with Him, is based on St. Paul, *1 Cor. 6:17*. The intellectual character of the illumination by the Paraclete leads him toward a gnostic knowledge (v. *Kephalaia*, p. 15). The energetic basis of Mani’s gnosis is evident in his identification of matter with concupiscence. Without concupiscence, there would be no material world. Matter is dark because concupiscence lacks the light of intelligence.
Mani’s dualism of God and Hyle, of Light and Darkness, is ultimately an anthropological dualism, but the extension of this anthropological dualism to the entire world is justified by the analogy between microcosm and macrocosm. Just as Judeo-Christian eschatology is not merely a doctrine of the salvation of man but also concerns the entire world, so too Mani’s doctrine is a teaching that concerns the universe. The condition of fallen man is, so to speak, reflected in the condition of a fallen universe. If in man God—that is, the soul of man consubstantial with God—and Matter—that is, the body, viewed in terms of its concupiscence—Light and Darkness are mixed, then one must suppose that the universe is in the same state of mixture. The light and the darkness in the world, which at the beginning were separated into two clearly distinct kingdoms, have become mixed, just as the soul has mixed with the body. One day, Hyle sees the kingdom of Light and is seized by the desire to invade this foreign territory.
The idea of an attack by the primeval darkness may have been suggested to Mani by a Jewish or Christian tradition that attributed to the Spirit of *Gen. 1:2* the function of separating the region of light from that of darkness (*Gen. 1:4*; cf. Theophilus of Antioch, *Ad Autolycus*, II, 13; PG 6, 1072-73). The Father of “greatness” (majesty) met this attack by sending to meet it “the Primal Man” (not to be confused with the “earthly Adam”) with his soul and his five elements (air, wind, light, water, fire). In this battle, the “Primal Man” suffers a defeat; the darkness devours the luminous elements of the “Primal Man.” Thus occurred the mixture of light and darkness in this world.
This account is based on the presupposition of the idea of a “Primal Man,” of a “cosmic Adam,” essentially “light” who is God, more precisely: an essence in God. At this point, Mani continues a preceding Gnostic speculation. The idea of a “cosmic Adam” and his fall was also known among the heretics; what is characteristic of Mani is the substitution of the idea of a fall with that of a defeat in battle. Just as the “Primal Man,” though divine, is not identical with God, so the “Primal Man” is not identical with his five luminous elements. In the defeat, the “Primal Man” loses, for a moment, his consciousness, then recovers and asks the “Father of Greatness” for his liberation. Even for this prayer of the “Primal Man,” there is an analogy in a tradition independent of Mani (v. E. Peterson, *La libération d’Adam de l’Ananke*, in *Revue biblique*, 55 [1948], p. 199 ff).
The Father sends to the aid of the “Primal Man” the Living Spirit, who stretches out his right hand to the “Primal Man,” who takes it, and is thus brought back to the paradise of light. The description of the liberation of the “Primal Man” may have been elaborated on the basis of the account of Christ’s *descensus ad inferos*. The outstretched hand of Christ in the *descensus* (v. , e.g., *Epistola apostolorum*, 27, ed. Duensing, p. 23) served as a model, but the handshake took on a special importance in Mani due to an Iranian tradition in which this gesture had religious and moral significance.
Thus, the “Primal Man” was saved, but not so his “soul,” his “armor,” the five “luminous elements,” which had been lost in unconsciousness. To save these, the demiurge creates the world. From the skin of the demonic archons are created ten heavens, from their flesh eight earths, from uncontaminated light the sun and moon, and from partially contaminated light the stars. The remainder of the light, mixed with darkness, is extracted and refined through the activity of the “Third Messenger.” This activity has in part a mechanical character, in part a libidinous one, for by appealing to the mechanism of sexual life, particles of light that the demons had swallowed are extracted along with the semen.
The repugnant images used by Mani in the account of the seduction of the archons, including the image of abortion, are not Mani’s own creations but come from a preceding Gnostic tradition. The final attempt of Hyle to maintain its dominion consists in the creation of Adam and Eve, in whose bodies the animal form of the archons is preserved, while their lust corresponds to the desire of Matter to
To maintain the luminous soul in an endless prison, transmitted through generation. The salvific activity now concentrated on man is entrusted to Jesus, to this luminous Jesus (ziad) whom the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles also know (v. E. Peterson, in Vigiliae christianae cit., p. 157 ff). This Jesus-Noûs (intelligence) awakens Adam, shows him his suffering soul and the animalistic nature of his body, reveals to him his celestial origin, and imparts to him the "gnosis," the knowledge of what was, what is, and what will be. Then Adam accepts Jesus’ commandments and, by rejecting the body of death, becomes free forever.
The Christian character of Mani’s heresy is demonstrated by the doctrine of the *Jesus patibilis*, who presents the soul in the world as "cruciSasa," "omni suspensus ex ligno" (cf. St. Augustine, *Contra Faustum*, XX, 2, p. 536, 21, ed. I. Zycha, CSEL, 25). The salvation of the world is a very slow process, bound to the acceptance of Mani’s encratite doctrine, which will bring about the end of this world. The general outlines of Manichaean eschatology align with those of the Church, and one can detect a certain millenarism within II. The goal is the separation of the two substances. The individual must create dualism within himself through gnosis. Neither Baptism nor the Eucharist hold any value. Prayer and hymns constitute the sanctifying action. It is difficult not to commit sins. The Manichaean books on the confession of sins demonstrate this. The elements weep when Manichaeans break bread or gather figs. The problem can only be mitigated by distinguishing between *auditores* (catechumens) and *electi*, but it cannot be resolved. The *auditores* are obliged to observe a kind of decalogue but otherwise may possess property, marry, etc. These actions may benefit them if done for the advantage of the elect (almsgiving), but they do not free the *auditor* from the transmigration of souls. The perfect are forbidden all forms of possession and secular labor. They may wear only one garment per year (encratite tradition) and may eat only once a day (in the evening); frequent and prolonged fasts are prescribed for them, and they must strictly observe the three seals: of the mouth (not eating meat, not drinking wine, etc.), of the hand (not performing actions that could harm the soul in the world), and of the breast (carnal abstinence). Even on this point, Mani is the continuator of the encratite tradition in Mesopotamia. Among foods and legumes, melons and gourds are preferred, as they contain much of the luminous substance. Eating itself does not serve to sustain the body but to extract the luminous substance. In this sense, every meal of the elect is a religious act. The preparation of food, which cannot be done without sin, is entrusted to the catechumens. The elect curse the food-bringer, rejecting any responsibility for the sin committed by the other while still accepting the gifts.
The consequences of Mani’s doctrine led to unsatisfactory solutions, a fact noted by St. Augustine, who converted from Manichaeism to the doctrine of the Church. Yet the fact that St. Augustine was an *auditor* in Mani’s sect for nine years is proof that this heresy must have contained something very attractive—something that, today, with only a partial knowledge of the traditions collected by Mani, is difficult for us to fully appreciate.