|
MANICHEAN
PANTHEON,
the
gods
of
the
Manicheans
considered
collectively
with
regards
to
their
names
and
functions.
Sources.
Accounts
of
Manichean
cosmogony
are
the
most
important
sources
for
the
understanding
of
the
Manichean
pantheon.
The
best
available
version
is
undoubtedly
Theodore
Bar
Ko@nay's
abstract
in
his
Liber
Scholiorum
(ed.
Addai
Scher,
1960;
French
tr.
Hespel
and
Draguet,
1982)
not
only
because
of
its
concise
and
systematic
rendering
but
also
because
it
is
composed
in
Syriac,
an
Aramaic
dialect
very
close
to
Mani's
mother-tongue
(for
a
comprehensive
survey
of
other
Manichean
and
non-Manichean
cosmogonical
sources
see
COSMOGONY
and
cosmology
iii.).
Next
in
importance
are
discourses
on
the
deeds
and
merits
of
prominent
gods.
In
the
Eastern
tradition
the
"Sermon
on
the
Light-Nous"
(Manohmed
ro@æn
wifra@s;
ed.
Sundermann,
1992a)
and
the
"Sermon
on
the
Soul"
(Gya@n
wifra@s,
i.e.
on
the
Living
Soul;
ed.
Sundermann,
1997)
are
of
particular
significance.
Several
chapters
of
the
Coptic
Kephalaia
also
discuss
various
gods
in
some
detail
(e.g.
Keph.
21-22:
Father
of
Greatness;
Keph.
51,
53,
72,
74:
First
Man
and
his
five
sons;
Keph.
32,
43,
54:
Living
Spirit;
Keph.
34-35,
46,
65,
66:
Third
Messenger
and
Sun;
Keph.
95:
Virgin
of
Light;
Keph.
38,
103:
Light
Nous).
Valuable
information
can
also
be
gleaned
from
hymns
in
praise
of
divine
beings,
such
as
Mid.
Pers.
and
Parth.
hymns
to
the
Living
Soul
(Andreas-Henning,
1933,
pp.
318-21;
Andreas-Henning,
1934,
pp.
870-78),
to
the
Third
Messenger
and
Sun
god
(Andreas-Henning,
1934,
pp.
883-90),
to
Jesus
(Andreas-Henning,
1933,
pp.
312-18;
Andreas-Henning,
1934,
pp.
878-83),
and
also
from
various
Coptic
Hymns
(ed.
Allberry,
1938,
pp.
49-97,
120-26).
Hymnic
enumerations
of
gods
offer
brief
summaries
of
the
pantheon
(see
examples
in
Waldschmidt-Lentz,
1933,
pp.
545-62),
as
do
word-lists
of
divine
beings
(Sundermann,
1994,
pp.
452-62;
repr.
Sundermann,
2001,
pp.
833-43).
Divine
categories
and
their
terminology.
The
Manicheans
adopted
the
different
Zoroastrian
terms
designating
gods,
which
were
in
common
use
in
3rd-century
Iran,
namely
Mid.
Pers.
bay
and
yazad
and
Parth.
bag
and
yazad.
They
developed
in
both
of
these
languages
a
fixed
terminological
system
for
designating
individual
gods,
invariably
saying
Ohrmezd
bay
and
bay
Zurwa@n,
but
Mihr
yazad
and
Narisah
yazad.
This
use
of
terminology
has
no
basis
in
Mani's
own
Syriac
tongue,
however.
It
is
otherwise
in
Keph.
22
(Gardner,
p.
68),
which
distinguishes
between
"gods"
(noute),
"rich
ones"
(rmmao)
and
"[angels]"
([aggelos]).
Keph.
50
(Gardner,
pp.
133-34)
explains
the
difference
between
these
terms:
"gods"
are,
according
to
its
definition,
those
beings
which
were
"evoked"
by
(see
below),
or
emanated
from,
the
Father
of
Greatness
himself,
and
in
turn
they
evoke
the
"rich
ones"
and
what
the
"rich
ones"
evoke
are
called
"angels,"
both
in
the
eternal
world
of
light
of
the
Father
and
in
the
nether
world
of
the
cosmos.
But
these
terminological
distinctions
have
remained
without
any
real
consequence
for
Manichean
theology,
except
for
the
differentiation
between
gods
and
angels
(cf.
Allberry,
ed.,
1938
p.
213,
l.
21:
the
redeemed
believers
will
be
"added
to
the
number
of
the
angels")
which
is
also
well
known
in
Eastern
Manichean
texts
(e.g.
Parth.
Mani.
137
I,
recto,
ll.
5-8:
"Full
of
mercy
is
this
day
of
confession
of
the
"gods"
(yazda@n,
i.e.
of
the
elect),
of
the
assembly
of
gods
(baga@n)
and
angels
(fre@ætaga@n),"
(somewhat
differently
Henning,
1945,
p.
485,
n.
7).
The
"rich
ones"
are
evidently
what
Mandaic
texts
call
the
uthri
"riches"
(cf.
Rudolph,
1993,
p.
357).
They
therefore
must
be
a
common
Mandaic
and
Manichean
heritage,
and
they
belong
to
Mani's
own
theological
concepts.
It
is
possible
that
the
tripartite
structure
of
the
divine
world
is
reflected
in
ˆahrasta@ni's
distinction
between
"angels,
gods
and
awlia@÷"
(Gimaret-Monnot,
1986,
p.
658).
Although
translators
render
awlia@÷
as
"saints,"
another
possible
meaning
would
be
"lords,
possessors,
or
owners"
which
is
closer
to
"rich
one."
Cf.
also
"(1)
Light
Gods,
(2)
Angels
and
Elements,
and
(3)
Powers
(z÷wrkynd),"
in
the
Sogd.
Text
M
178,
ll.
5-7;
Henning,
1948,
pp.
307-308).
Manichean
theology.
The
approximately
forty
Manichean
gods
and
goddesses
mentioned
in
doctrinal
and
hymnic
texts
seem
to
bear
witness
to
a
markedly
polytheistic
theology.
This
impression
is
contradicted,
however,
by
certain
classical
descriptions,
which
present
the
Manichean
cosmogony
and
cosmology
in
philosophical
terms
and
concepts.
The
characteristic
example
is
Alexander
of
Lycopolis
(see
Van
der
Horst
and
Mansfeld,
1974;
Villey,
1985)
who
calls
the
First
Man
"Soul,"
the
Spiritus
Vivens
"Demiurge,"
the
Third
Messenger
"another
power,"
and
the
demoness
AÚz
"Matter"
(Hyle@).
Simplicius
describes
the
Manichean
system
and
its
actors
in
an
even
more
abstract
way
(Text
in
Adam,
1969,
pp.
71-74).
Islamic
sources,
namely
Ebn
al-Nadim's
Fehrest
(ed.
Flügel,
pp.
52-58,
86-90)
and
ˆahrasta@ni's
Keta@b
al-melal
wa'l-neháal
(tr.
Gimaret
and
Monnot,
1986,
pp.
658-59),
tend
to
avoid
direct
reference
to
some
Manichean
deities
as
gods,
mentioning
them
by
their
proper
names
only,
perhaps
in
order
to
conceal
from
their
Islamic
readers
the
polytheistic
appearance
of
the
Manichean
doctrine.
Most
of
them
are
called
"angels"
(malak)
rather
than
"gods"
(ela@h).
But
even
the
Manichean
myth
itself
makes
it
clear
that
there
is,
strictly
speaking,
only
one
eternal
and
all-embracing
god,
limited
only
by
the
Evil,
namely
the
Father
of
Greatness.
All
the
other
deities,
whether
they
are
specified
as
gods
or
merely
called
angels,
are
no
more
than
his
"evocations."
(Text
T.
II
K.
2a,
A.
von
Le
Coq,
ed.,
1911
[1912],
p.
22,
calls
the
Father
of
Greatness
the
elder
brother
and
sister
of
all
the
other
gods.)
To
describe
their
origin
Mani
avoided
the
actual
term
for
the
concept
of
procreation
replacing
it
by
Syr.
qra@
(Bar
Ko@nay,
Liber
Scholiorum,
ed.
Scher,
1960,
p.
313,
l.
27),
lit.
"call,"
meaning
"to
evoke
by
creative
word."
The
creative
word
sets
in
motion
an
emanation,
which
results
in
a
hypostasis.
It
is
not
a
creatio
ex
nihilo.
The
First
Man,
for
instance,
is
ultimately
regarded
as
his
father's
own
Self
and
Soul
(ibid.,
p.
313,
l.
26:
÷l÷
bnpæy
÷zln÷
"But
I
shall
go
myself,"
lit.
"in
my
self/soul").
In
the
same
way
as
the
multiplicity
of
the
pantheon
took
shape
at
the
beginning
of
cosmic
history,
it
will,
after
the
fulfillment
of
its
tasks,
return
to
and
into
the
First
God
(Keph.
39,
also
M
5750,
Mid.
Pers.;
cf.
Sundermann,
1992b,
pp.
305-18;
repr.
Sundermann,
2001,
pp.
667-81).
This
does
not
only
follow
from
the
events
of
cosmic
history,
Mani
has
described
it
himself
in
an
important
passage
of
his
Treasury
of
the
Living
quoted
by
Biruni
in
his
India
(Keta@b
taháqiq
ma@
le'l-hend):
"The
resplendent
hosts
will
be
called
young
women
and
virgins,
fathers
and
mothers,
sons,
brothers
and
sisters,
because
such
is
the
custom
in
the
books
of
the
prophets.
In
the
country
of
joy
there
is
neither
male
nor
female
and
there
are
no
limbs
to
be
covered.
They
all
bear
living
bodies.
They
do
not
differ
from
each
other
in
weakness
and
force,
in
length
and
shortness,
in
figure
and
looks;
they
are
like
similar
lamps
which
are
lighted
by
the
same
lamp
and
nourished
by
the
same
material.
The
reason
for
such
naming
is
the
struggle
of
the
two
realms"
(ed.
and
tr.
Sachau,
I,
pp.
19,
ll.
2-9,
39;
Taqizadeh
and
Afæa@r
ˆira@zi,
1956,
pp.
211,
l.
16-212,
l.
1;
Adam,
1969,
pp.
4-5).
In
the
light
of
this
explanation
it
would
be
more
correct
to
regard
the
Manichean
pantheon
as
a
manifold,
complex
manifestation
of
the
Manichean
original
divinity,
and
Manichean
theology
as
a
kind
of
polymorph
monotheism.
This
has
been
recognized
clearly
and
emphasized
by
Henning
(1947,
p.
39).
Not
only
were
the
Manichean
gods
of
a
temporary
nature,
some
of
them
could
also
change
their
appearance
whenever
or
however
it
was
desirable.
This
was
the
case
with
the
First
Man
(Baur,
1831;
repr.
1973,
pp.
55,
63),
the
Third
Messenger,
the
Virgin
of
Light,
the
twelve
Virgins
of
Light,
and
also
the
Living
Spirit
(Sundermann,
1991,
pp.
339-42;
repr.
Sundermann,
2001,
pp.
827-31),
when
they
seduced
the
demons
in
female
and
male
forms.
A
change
of
appearance
is
also
attributed
to
Jesus
the
Splendor
on
his
way
down
to
Adam
on
earth,
and
when
he
"clothed"
himself
in
Eve
(Sundermann,
1994,
pp.
317-27;
repr.
Sundermann,
2001,
pp.
877-88).
Certain
other
deities
are
described
sometimes
as
persons,
sometimes
as
objects
or
abstract
concepts,
such
as
the
Light
Elements,
which
can
be
also
the
sons
of
the
First
Man,
his
garments,
or
his
armor.
The
five
sons
of
the
Living
Spirit
can
be
five
heroic
warriors
or
five
ethical
concepts.
The
Twelve
Virgins
of
Light
also
personify
twelve
virtues,
and
the
Perfect
Man
is
likewise
the
Column
of
Glory.
Manichean
theology
was
claimed
unreservedly
to
be
a
form
of
monotheism
in
the
Christian
milieu
of
North
Africa
towards
the
end
of
the
fourth
century
CE.
Felix,
in
his
dispute
with
St.
Augustine,
did
not
hesitate
to
say,
concerning
the
pantheon
of
his
creed,
hoc
unum
sunt
omnes
("that
one
(being)
are
are
all
(gods)"
)
(Decret,
1991,
p.
61,
n.
7).
The
defenders
of
Manicheism
stressed
the
uniqueness
of
god,
less
against
polytheism
than
the
Christian
accusation
of
dyotheism
(cf.
Decret,
1970,
pp.
197-201;
idem,
1978,
p.
295).
This
was
because
the
Manicheans
were
accused
of
having
made
the
Prince
of
Darkness
into
an
original,
self-existing
principle,
independent
of
the
good
God,
and
thus
endowed
with
the
qualities
of
a
deity
per
definitionem.
What
the
Manicheans
themselves
did
not
accept
was
the
Christian
and
Jewish
(and
philosophical)
type
of
consequent
monotheism,
which
logically
resulted
in
confessing
God
as
the
lord
over
good
and
evil
(cf.
Keph.
112,
120;
Allberry,
ed.,
1938,
p.
57,
ll.
3-12;
Decret,
op.
cit.).
The
functional
structure
of
the
Manichean
pantheon.
It
was
the
task
of
the
Manichean
pantheon
to
overcome
the
attack
of
the
powers
of
darkness
and
to
render
those
powers
harmless
forever.
This
was
achieved
by
three
successions
of
gods,
which
correspond
to
the
three
acts
of
the
Manichean
cosmogony,
cosmology
and
eschatology
respectively:
1)
the
redemption
of
the
World
of
Light
from
the
attack
of
Darkness;
2)
the
creation
of
the
cosmos
as
a
prison
for
the
demons
and
an
instrument
for
the
liberation
of
the
Living
Soul;
and
3)
the
process
of
the
liberation
of
the
particles
of
the
Living
Soul
from
their
imprisonment
in
demonic
matter.
This
has
led
to
the
evocation
of
the
following
essentially
triadic
groups
of
gods.
First
group:
i.
Father
of
Greatness
(Syr.
÷b÷
drbwt÷,
Mid.
Pers.
pyd
¿y
wzrgyhò,
by
zrw÷n,
Parth.
pydr
wzrgyftò,
Sogd.
÷zrw÷
£©yy
etc.;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/1,
3/1,
4/1;
Coptic
names:
Lindt,
1992,
pp.
12-13;
Chinese
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
121-22;
further
names:
Polotsky,
1933,
p.
66;
Vermes-Lieu,
2001,
p.
45,
n.
32).
The
Father
of
Greatness
is,
strictly
speaking,
the
uncreated
member
of
the
first
sequence
(on
his
role,
see
below,
and
Van
Tongerloo,
1994,
pp.
329-42).
ii.
Mother
of
Life/of
the
Living
(Syr.
÷m÷
dháy÷,
Mid.
Pers.
m÷dr
¿y
zyndg÷n,
Parth.
÷rd÷w÷n
m÷d,
Sogd.
÷r’÷w÷n
m÷tò
etc.,
also
called
Great
Spirit,
Parth.
w÷d
wzrg;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/2,
4/2;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
42;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
p.
121;
further
names:
Polotsky,
1933,
p.
66;
Vermes-Lieu,
2001,
p.
46,
n.
33).
The
Mother
of
Life
is
the
immediate
origin
of
the
First
Man
and
supports
the
Living
Spirit
in
his
work.
(On
the
Mother
of
Life,
see
further
Tongerloo,
1997,
pp.
361-64.)
iii.
First
Man
(Syr.
÷næ÷
qdmy÷,
Mid.
Pers.
÷whrmyzd
by,
Parth.
mrd(whm)
hsyng,
mrdwhm
nxwyn,
÷whrmyzdbg,
Sogd.
Xwrmztò÷£©,
÷÷’£©;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sections
2/3,
3/3,
4/3;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
53;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
p.
121;
further
names:
Vermes-Lieu,
2001,
p.
46,
n.
34),
also
called
the
"First
Enthymesis"
(Mid.
Pers.
hndyæyæn
nxwystòyn,
Chin.
xian
yi;
Bryder,
1985,
p.
123).
The
First
Man
is
instrumental
in
diverting
the
attack
of
the
demons
of
darkness
on
the
world
of
light.
His
rescue
of
the
world
of
light
is
described
both
as
a
sacrifice
to
protect
its
integrity
and
as
an
heroic
victory
over
the
demons.
In
any
case,
the
First
Man
is
not
under
the
power
of
darkness.
The
only
divine
beings
to
remain
under
the
sway
of
the
demons
are
the
five
sons
of
the
First
Man,
who
are
the
Five
Light
Gods
(Syr.
hámæ÷
÷lh÷
zywn÷,
Mid.
Pers.
(÷)mhr÷spnd÷n,
Parth.
pnj
rwæn,
Sogd.
mr’÷spndt
etc.).
They
are
also
called
the
First
Man's
five
weapon,
or
garments,
and
form
together
with
their
father
the
third
part
of
the
first
group
of
gods.
They
are
the
five
Light
Elements:
ether,
wind,
light,
water
and
fire.
As
the
light
substance
devoured
by
the
demons,
they
are
the
Living
Soul
imprisoned
and
cut
up
in
the
dark
matter
(Syr.
npæ÷
háyt÷,
Mid.
Pers.
gryw
zyndg,
Parth.
gryw
jywndg,
similarly
Soghd.
Which
also
has
jwndy
©ryw;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/4,
3/4,
4/4;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
pp.
62-63;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
121-22,
123;
cf.
also
Polotsky,
1933,
pp.
71-72;
Vermes-Lieu,
2001,
p.
46,
n.
35).
The
five
sons
of
the
First
Man
are
the
object
of
salvation.
The
god
of
the
Answer
(Syr.
¿ny÷,
Mid.
Pers.
÷zdygr
yzd,
Parth.
pdw÷xtg,
Sogd.
P’w÷xtòg,
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/5,
4/5;
in
Copt.
also
"hearing,
obedience,"
cf.
Lindt,
1992,
p.
72;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
121,
122,
123)
is
often
classified
as
the
sixth
son
of
the
First
Man.
(For
his
function,
see
below
concerning
God
of
the
Call
in
the
second
group.)
Second
group.
i)
Friend
of
Lights
(Syr.
hábyb
nhyr÷,
Mid.
Pers.
rwæn÷n
xw÷ryst,
Parth.
fryhrwæn,
Sogd.
fryy
rwæn
£©yy;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/6;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
76;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
122,
123;
further
names:
Polotsky,
1933,
pp.
66-67),
a
deity
whose
function
is
unclear
apart
from
the
task
of
bringing
forth
the
Great
Architect
within
a
triadic
series
of
mainly
demiurgic
gods.
ii)
Great
Architect
(Syr.
bn
rb÷,
Mid.
Pers.
r÷z
¿y
wzrg,
r÷z
¿yg
rwæn,
Parth.
b÷myzd,
Sogd.
£÷m
£©yy
etc.,
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
1/7,
2/7,
3/7,
4/7;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
79;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
p.
122).
The
Great
Architect,
on
the
command
of
the
Third
Messenger,
builds
the
New
Paradise,
which
is
the
goal
of
redeemed
souls,
and
a
prison
for
the
powers
of
darkness.
iii)
The
Living
Spirit
(Syr.
rwhá÷
háy÷,
Mid.
Pers.
myhryzd,
Parth.
w÷d
jywndg,
Sogd.
w÷d
jywndg,
w÷’
jywndyy
etc.;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sections
2/8,
3/8,
4/8;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
86,
also
termed
Father
of
Life
in
Coptic;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
p.
122;
further
names:
Vermes-Lieu,
2001,
p.
48,
n.
43).
The
Living
Spirit
liberates
the
First
Man
from
the
demonic
powers
of
darkness,
and
as
the
demiurge
he
builds
the
cosmos
from
the
bodies
of
slain
demons
and
places
the
remaining
demons
in
the
prison
of
this
world.
As
in
the
case
of
the
First
Man,
who
is
the
third
in
the
first
triadic
gods,
the
Living
Spirit
is
accompanied
by
five
(or
six)
sons:
the
Keeper
of
Splendor,
King
of
Honor,
Adamant
of
Light
(see
Van
Lindt,
1993,
pp.
95-105),
King
of
Glory
and
the
Porter,
also
called
Atlas
(Syriac
and
Iranian
names:
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/9,
3/9,
4/9;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
91;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
122,
123;
further
names:
Vermes-Lieu,
2001,
p.
49,
n.
49).
Their
task
is
to
guard
and
maintain
the
building
of
the
cosmos
as
a
prison
of
the
demons.
The
god
of
the
Call,
or
Summons(so
Gardner;
Syr.
qry÷,
MP.
xwndg,
myzdgt÷c
[yzd],
Parth.
xrwætg,
Sogd.
xrwætg,
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sections
2/10,
4/10;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
72;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
121,
123)
is
regarded
as
the
sixth
son
of
the
Living
Spirit.
He
is
the
awakening
call
that
was
once
sent
to
the
defeated,
unconscious
First
Man.
Once
roused,
the
First
Man
answered
the
call,
and
both
Call
and
Answer
(or
Obedience)
became
united
into
one
new
god,
the
Enthymesis
of
Life
(Syr.
[mháæbt÷
dháy÷],
Mid.
Pers.
hndyæyæn
zyndg,
Parth.
÷ndyæyæn
jywndg,
Sogd.
[jw(÷)ndc
æm÷r÷],
Copt.
sa±ne,
Chin.
Si,
Arabic
[hamma@ma];
not
in
Sundermann,
1979,
but
in
Sundermann
"God
and
his
adversary
in
Manicheism...,"
forthcoming).
The
Enthymesis
of
Life
is
explained
by
Henning
(Andreas-Henning,
1943,
p.
878,
n.
4)
as
the
Soul's
natural
will
for
redemption.
The
third
group
is
divided
into
two
branches
which,
as
H.
J.
Polotsky
has
recognized
(1935,
p.
253;
repr.
in
Widengren,
1977,
p.
118),
correspond
to
the
two
cosmic
vehicles
of
redemption,
the
Sun
and
the
Moon.
a.
The
"sun-group":
i)
Third
Messenger
(Syr.
÷yzgd÷
"the
Messenger,"
Mid.
Pers.
nryshyzd,
Parth.
hrdyg
fryætg,
nrysfyzd,
myhr
(yzd),
Sogd.
־tykw
pr÷y-æt÷k,
nryænx
£©y,
myæyy
£©yy
etc.,
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/11,
3/11,
4/11;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
115;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
121,
122,
123;
further
names:
Polotsky,
1933,
p.
67),
the
redeemer
of
the
Living
Soul,
mainly
from
its
macrocosmic
bonds.
He
seduces
the
female
and
male
archons,
and
sets
the
sun,
the
moon
and
the
cosmic
wheel
in
motion,
but,
as
the
main
deity
in
the
sun-group,
he
is
also
instrumental
in
redeeming
human
souls.
ii)
The
Twelve
Virgins
(Syr.
trt¿sr÷
btwlt÷,
Mid.
Pers.
qnyg÷n
rwæn÷n,
Parth.
qnyg÷n,
Sogd.
XII
£©pwryæt;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/12;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
173;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
122,
123).
Their
function
is
the
same
as
that
of
the
Virgin
of
Light
(see
below,
and
also
Van
Tongerloo,
1997,
pp.
366-67).
iii)
The
Column
of
Glory
(Syr.
÷stwn
æwbhá÷,
Parth.
b÷mystwn;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/13.1;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
179;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
121,
122,
123),
also
called
the
Perfect
Man
(Syr.
not
preserved,
Mid
Pers.
mrd
¿yg
¿spwr,
srwæhr÷y,
Parth.
mrd
¿spwryg,
Sogd.
srwærtò
£©yy,
etc.,
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/13.1,
3/13.1,
4/13.1;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
179;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
p.
122;
further
names:
Polotsky,
1933,
p.
67).
He
collects
the
redeemed
souls
and
light
particles
and
leads
them
up
to
the
moon.
An
eschatological
variant
of
this
god
is
the
(god
of
the)
Final
Statue
(Syr.
not
preserved,
Parth.
¿stòwmynyzd;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
section
2/13.2;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
183;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
pp.
121,
122,
123).
b.
The
"moon-group":
i)
Jesus
the
Splendor
(Syr.
yyæw¿
zywn÷,
Mid.
Pers.
yyæw¿
¿spyxt÷n,
m÷hò
(yzd),
Parth.
yyæw¿
zyw÷,
m÷hò
(yzd),
Sogd.
yyæw¿,
m÷x
(£©yy),
etc.,
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
1/14,
2/14,
3/14,
4/14;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
pp.
143-44;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
p.
121;
Greek
name:
Polotsky,
1933,
pp.
67-68),
who
serves
mainly,
but
not
exclusively,
as
the
redeemer
of
the
Living
Soul
from
the
microcosmic
sphere
of
mankind.
He
arouses
Adam,
emanates
the
Light
Nous,
and,
through
the
Light
Nous,
he
sends
out
all
the
subsequent
apostles
of
truth,
including
Mani.
(On
the
manifold
aspects
of
the
Jesus
figure
in
Manicheism,
see
christ
in
manichaeism;
see
further,
Franzmann,
2000,
pp.
220-246,
esp.
pp.
229-34;
Richter,
2001,
pp.
174-84).
ii)
Virgin
of
Light
(Syr.
not
preserved,
Mid.
Pers.
knygrwæn,
Parth.
knygrwæn,
sdwys,
Sogd.
qnygrwæn,
rwxæn÷
£©pwryc,
etc.,
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
section
2/15,
3/15,
4/15;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
173;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
p.
123;
further
names:
Polotsky,
1933,
p.
68;
Vermes-Lieu,
2001,
p.
51,
n.
58).
She
is
active
mainly
in
the
sky,
where
she
fights
against
the
demons
of
thunderstorms
(see
further
Van
Tongerloo,
1997,
pp.
364-71).
iii)
The
Light
Nous
(Syr.:
not
preserved,
Mid.
Pers.
whmn
(yzd),
Parth.
mnwhmyd
rwæn,
Sogd.
mnwhmyd
rwæn,
whmn
rwæn,
’ynmztò÷yzn
£©yy,
etc.;
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
section
2/16.1,
3/16.1,
4/16.1;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
p.
165;
Chin.
names:
Bryder,
1985,
p.
123;
further
names:
Polotsky,
1933,
pp.
68-70),
who
is
also
called
Holy
Spirit
and
Living
Spirit
(Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/16.2;
Chin.
name:
Bryder,
1985,
p.
121),
is
the
divine,
redeeming
force
in
the
Manichean
religion.
He
brings
the
nature
of
the
New
Man
to
power
in
the
redeemed
man
and
subdues
the
demonic
spirit
of
matter.
A
whole
volume
of
articles
is
devoted
to
the
different
aspects
of
the
figure
of
the
Light
Nous
(A.
Van
Tongerloo
and
J.
Van
Oort,
eds.,
1995),
as
well
as
the
Parthian
"Sermon
on
the
light-Nous"
(Sundermann,
1992a)
.
The
group
of
deities
redeeming
the
Living
Soul
is
rich
in
further
emanations,
which
are
attributed
either
to
Jesus
the
Splendor
or
to
the
Light
Nous.
They
all
play
their
role
in
individual
eschatology.
It
is
worth
mentioning
the
Great
Judge,
who
will
sit
in
judgment
over
the
souls
of
the
deceased
(Syr.
not
preserved,
Parth.
d÷dbr
r־tygr,
Sogd.
rætòyy
÷xtòw;
Bactrian
rætyg
l÷d£r:
Gershevitch,
1984,
p.
275,
cf.
Sundermann,
1979,
sub
2/17;
Copt.
names:
Lindt,
1992,
pp.
193-94;
Chin.
names
not
attested),
and
the
Light
Form,
who
is
accompanied
by
three
angels
who
will
approach
the
souls
of
the
deceased
and
lead
them
on
their
way
to
paradise
(Polotsky,
1933,
p.
72;
cf.
Keph.
7)
as
well
as
the
"Counterpart"
of
the
apostle,
that
is
Mani's
twin
spirit
or
Syzygos
(Mid.
Pers.
nrjmyg,
Parth.
ymg
(rwæn),
Sogd.
ym÷krwæn;
Sundermann,
1981,
pp.
166,
176,
192;
Polotsky,
1933,
p.
72;
cf.
Keph.
7;
also
forthcoming
De
Blois,
"Manes'
'Twin',").
The
structure
of
the
third
group
of
gods
is
without
doubt
the
most
complicated
one.
Its
arrangement
as
described
here
(cf.
Keph.
25)
may
be
contradicted
by
models
presented
in
other
Manichean
texts.
In
Keph.
7,
for
instance,
the
following
sequence
of
emanations
is
postulated:
Father
of
Greatness,
Third
Messenger,
Jesus
the
Splendor,
Light
Nous,
Light
Form
and
Three
Angels
(on
this
problem
in
general,
see
Heuser,
1998,
pp.
3-108,
esp.
pp.
90-103).
The
name
of
the
Third
Messenger
(also
rendered
as
Third
Ambassador)
is
proof
that
the
tripartite
system
of
the
Manichean
pantheon
is
not
merely
a
construct
of
scholars,
although
there
is
no
god
called
the
First
or
the
Second
Messenger
(except
in
Chinse
nomenclature
which
does
have
the
name
dier
shi
"Second
Messenger"
for
the
Friend
of
Lights;
Bryder,
1985,
p.
123).
Apart
from
the
already-mentioned
triadic
grouping
of
Manichean
deities,
other
numeric
stylizations
are
also
evident,
such
as
pentads
(five
sons
of
the
First
Man,
five
sons
of
the
Living
Spirit)
and
the
dodecadic
group
of
the
Twelve
Virgins
of
Light.
(Concise
synopses
of
the
Manichean
pantheon
are
given
in
Boyce,
Reader,
pp.
9-10;
and
Tardieu,
1981,
pp.
104-107.)
The
pantheon
was
conceived
in
order
to
fulfill
specific
pre-cosmic
or
cosmological
tasks.
But
that
does
not
mean
that,
with
the
fulfillment
of
their
designated
work,
the
gods
become
inactive
or
disappear
from
the
cosmic
scene.
On
the
contrary,
a
deity
of
the
First
Evocation
(I)
supports
the
demiurgical
work,
and
deities
of
the
First
and
Second
Evocation
(II)
participate
in
the
redemption
of
the
Living
Soul,
as
it
is
currently
under
the
effect
of
the
deities
of
the
Third
Evocation
(III).
The
following
examples
may
suffice
to
illustrate
this
point:
The
Mother
of
Life
(I)
takes
part
in
the
creation
of
the
world
out
of
the
bodies
of
the
demons
killed
by
the
Living
Spirit
(II).
The
Third
Messenger
(III)
commissions
the
Great
Architect
(II)
to
erect
the
New
Paradise
and
to
build
a
prison
for
the
enemies
of
the
light.
From
the
Call
(II)
of
the
Spirit
of
Life
and
the
Answer
(I)
of
the
First
Man
a
new
god
comes
into
being,
the
Enthymesis
of
Life,
who
becomes
instrumental
in
the
soul-redeeming
process.
It
is
not
self-evident
why
a
misogynistic
religion
such
as
Manicheism
admits
the
existence
and
redeeming
contribution
of
a
number
of
female
deities.
Indeed,
it
is
remarkable
that
in
the
First
and
Third
Evocations
of
the
Manichean
pantheon,
the
second
part
in
the
triple
sequence
of
gods
is
left
to
goddesses
(Mother
of
Life
(I),
Twelve
Virgins
(III),
Virgin
of
Light
(III)).
A
plausible
explanation
is
that
in
those
cases
there
is
still
a
trace
of
the
older
(Valentinian?)
idea
of
a
"spiritual
procreation,"
such
that
the
father–mother–son
pattern
can
be
presupposed.
In
the
First
Evocation,
this
pattern
has
the
character
of
a
Trinity
formula
of
the
Gnostic
type
(cf.
Leisegang,
1985,
p.
345):
God
the
Father,
Mother
(=
Holy
Spirit),
Son
(=
Christ).
The
description
of
the
Manichean
pantheon
presented
here
is
a
simplified
summary
based
on
the
original
sources
at
our
disposal.
It
comes
closest
to
the
abstract
of
the
Manichean
cosmogony
presented
by
Theodore
bar
Ko@nay,
which,
however,
is
defective
in
its
final
part.
The
cosmic
pantheon
and
its
model
in
the
World
of
Light.
Although
the
World
of
Light
and
the
nether
world
of
the
cosmos
are
totally
different
in
nature
and
function,
a
certain
degree
of
comparability
cannot
be
denied.
This
is
also
true
for
the
cosmic
deities.
Thus,
the
dodecadic
circle
of
the
divine
aeons
surrounding
the
Father
of
Greatness
reappears
as
the
Twelve
Virgins
(!)
of
Light
(III).
The
five
"dwellings"
of
the
Father
of
Light
are
the
same
as
the
five
members
of
the
soul
and
the
five
sons
of
the
Living
Spirit
(II).
Moreover,
the
five
sons
of
the
First
Man
(I)
reflect
the
"elements"
of
the
World
of
Light
(the
mr’÷spndt
of
Sogd.
M
178
/6/;
see
Henning,
1948,
pp.
307-308).
Since
it
is
impossible
to
imagine
anything
more
perfect
than
the
World
of
Light,
the
imitation
of
some
of
its
structures
in
the
cosmic
world
can
only
underline
the
well-arranged
perfection
of
the
worldly
pantheon
as
well.
Sources
of
the
Manichean
theological
system.
It
is
natural
to
compare
the
Manichean
sequences
of
gods
deriving
ultimately
from
the
Father
of
Greatness
with
similar
gnostic
speculations.
The
Valentinian
doctrine
of
syzygies
is
particularly
apt
for
comparison
(Rudolph,
1996;
repr.
Rudolph,
1965,
pp.
647-48;
Böhlig,
1988,
pp.
326-28,
338).
But
a
comparison
also
highlights
the
peculiarities
of
Manichean
theology
(cf.
Polotsky,
1935,
p.
248;
repr.
Widengren,
ed.,
1977,
p.
111).
There
is
hardly
a
trace
left
of
the
gnostic
idea
of
a
spiritual
procreation
of
sequences
of
deities,
from
the
First
Father
and
his
consort
down
to
the
last
one,
and
until
the
origin
of
the
world.
This
is
because
the
Manichean
sequence
of
emanations
does
not
imply
a
diminution
of
the
quality
of
the
light
of
succeeding
beings
(Bianchi,
1993,
pp.
25-26),
and
also
because
it
is
not
designed
to
separate
the
First
God
as
much
as
possible
from
the
evil
of
this
world,
but
rather
to
guarantee
the
successful
application
of
the
necessary
means
of
defense
against
worldly
evil
in
due
course.
The
Manichean
doctrine
of
the
Enthymesis
of
Death
and
Life
can
be
compared
with
the
Valentinian
Enthymesis
or
"Lower
Sophia,"
who,
out
of
desire
to
behold
the
Father
God,
became
the
origin
of
the
material
and
psychic
nature
of
the
world
(see
further
Sundermann,
"God
and
his
adversary
in
Manichaeism..."
forthcoming).
The
derivation
of
the
files
of
Manichean
gods
from
a
Zoroastrian
pattern,
such
as
the
successive
creation
of
the
divine
pantheon
as
described
in
the
Middle
Persian
Bundahiæn,
is
less
likely
to
be
correct.
A
gnostic
(most
likely
Valentinian)
affiliation
is
suggested
by
the
use
of
a
number
of
gnostic
terms
and
names
to
denote
divine
beings
in
the
Manichean
pantheon,
such
as
the
First
Man,
the
Enthymesis
of
Death,
the
Virgin
of
Light,
and
the
five
parts
of
the
Soul,
namely
"Reason,
Mind,
Intelligence,
Thought,
and
Understanding."
They
are
also
attested,
as
Rudolph
and
Tardieu
have
shown,
in
the
Eugnostos
Letter
73
and
in
the
Sophia
of
Jesus
Christ
95
(Rudolph,
1996;
repr.
Rudolph,
1965,
pp.
646-47;
Tardieu,
1984,
pp.
355-57,
366-70).
The
role
of
the
gods
in
relation
to
the
community
and
individual
piety.
Manichean
hymns
and
psalms,
which
are
preserved
in
large
numbers
in
both
the
Coptic
and
the
Iranian
traditions,
are
mainly
directed
towards
the
deities
and
thus
constitute
a
rich
source
for
the
understanding
of
the
role
of
the
gods
in
the
religious
practice
of
the
community.
In
general,
one
can
conclude
that
those
deities
to
whom
complete
hymns
are
dedicated
are
also
the
principal
ones,
while
gods
of
minor
rank,
receive,
at
the
very
most,
a
mere
mention
in
invocative
lists.
The
quantity
and
length
of
hymns
dedicated
to
a
particular
deity
may
also
be
regarded
as
a
measure
of
his
or
her
reputation.
On
this
basis,
one
may
conclude
that
the
deities
of
the
Third
Evocation
as
well
as
the
Living
Soul
were
the
main
object
of
Manichean
devotion.
It
should
not
come
as
a
surprise
that
praise
and
prayer
were
not
restricted
to
the
redeeming
deities
but
addressed
also
to
the
suffering
Living
Soul,
in
view
of
the
fact
that
the
latter
played
a
major
role
as
the
object
of
redemption
in
the
ritual
meal
of
the
elect.
Moreover,
one
means
of
setting
free
the
light
particles
of
the
Soul
was
the
chanting
of
hymns.
Among
the
gods
of
the
Third
Evocation,
it
is
primarily
the
Third
Messenger
and
Jesus
the
Splendor
who
are
addressed.
A
subordinate
role
is
played
by
the
demiurgical
deities
of
the
Second
Evocation,
and
among
the
deities
of
the
First
Evocation,
it
is
the
First
Man
who
is
given
prominence.
In
this
context,
the
significance
of
the
position
and
function
of
the
Manichean
First
God,
the
Father
of
Greatness,
needs
to
be
highlighted.
Not
only
is
the
Father
of
Greatness
the
origin
of
all
the
other
gods
of
the
Manichean
pantheon,
and
not
only
does
he
manifest
himself
in
the
cosmic
pantheon,
but
he
remains
at
the
same
time
the
god
of
the
World
of
Light
beyond
the
cosmos.
He
is
a
member
of
the
pentad
of
the
World
of
Light,
besides
those
12
aeons
who
surround
him
who
are
called
his
sons,
and
the
innumerable
aeons
around
the
inner
circle
of
aeons,
the
Earth
of
Light
and
the
Spirit
of
Life,
which
is
the
life-giving
air
of
the
World
of
Light
(cf.
Gharib,
2000,
pp.
258-69).
However,
it
is
stressed
in
Manicheism
that
it
was
the
Father
of
Greatness
himself
who,
of
all
the
beings
in
the
World
of
Light,
stood
up
against
the
attack
of
the
powers
of
Darkness
(Keph.
63).
He
did
so
in
the
person
of
the
First
Man,
who
is
called
his
own
Soul
and
Self
according
to
Alexander
of
Lycopolis
(see
above).
He
saved
the
World
of
Light
at
the
cost
of
some
of
his
own
light
substance.
After
this
achievement
he
remained
unmolested
by
the
powers
of
Darkness,
but
that
does
not
mean
that
he
became
a
passive
deus
absconditus.
(Cf.
Psalm-Book,
ed.
Allberry,
1938,
p.
161,
31-32:
"One
is
the
God
that
is
hidden,
that
is
revealed
.
.
silent
.
.
He
it
is
that
speaks
also,"
similarly
ibid.,
p.
171,
27-28).
On
the
contrary,
he
is
a
deity
who
is
often
praised
and
invoked
(see
Boyce,
1960,
p.
148,
section
40.),
and
that
can
only
mean
that
he
constantly
intervenes
in
the
world
on
behalf
of
the
Living
Soul.
The
involvement
of
the
Father
of
Greatness
in
cosmic
affairs
finds
a
quasi-pantheistic
expression
in
the
well-attested
dogma
of
the
fourfold
god
"God,
Light,
Power
and
Wisdom"
(where
"God"
can
also
be
replaced
by
"Purity"
or
"Holiness").
Thus,
in
the
Chinese
Hymn
Scroll
(vv.
146a
and
151a;
cf.
Waldschmidt-Lentz,
1933,
pp.
488
and
489),
and
in
the
Chinese
stone
inscription
of
Fujian
(Wushu,
1989,
I,
pp.
22-27;
for
a
similar
rock
inscription
beside
the
Manichean
temple
near
Quanzhou,
see
Bryder,
1988,
p.
206),
the
aspect
of
"Light"
is
represented
by
"Sun
and
Moon,"
"Power"
by
the
cosmic
achievement
of
the
Five
Light
Elements,
and
"Wisdom"
by
the
redeeming
gnosis
of
the
Manichean
church
(Merkelbach,
1986,
pp.
39-50;
on
the
pantheistic
aspect
of
Manichean
theology,
see
also
Baur,
1831
repr.
Baur,
1973,
pp.
41-45).
The
hymns
for
the
gods
contained
praise
of
them,
prayers
for
the
salvation
of
souls,
and
lamentation
over
the
fate
of
the
Living
Soul
in
the
prison
of
darkness,
but
hardly
any
request
for
worldly
goods,
sound
health,
peace
on
earth,
rich
harvest,
property
etc.
An
easing
of
earthly
troubles
could
have
been
expected
most
of
all
from
the
five
Light
Elements,
as
is
explained
in
the
"Sermon
on
the
Soul"
(Sundermann,
1997,
pp.
14-16).
The
religious
poetry
of
the
Manicheans,
their
hymns
and
their
psalms
were
large-scale
compositions
praising
the
redeeming
gods
as
well
as
complaining
about
the
miserable
fate
of
the
Living
Soul.
They
reflect
the
essence
of
Manichean
worship,
namely
to
turn
towards
the
suffering
and
redeeming
deity.
The
Manichean
elect
as
gods.
It
was
common
to
address
high-ranking
personalities
in
Sasanian
Iran
as
bay
"god,
lord."
This
was
not
alien
to
Manichean
communities
(Mani
is
repeatedly
addressed
in
Parth.
bg
÷wd
÷njywg
"God/Lord
and
Savior";
see
also
Puech,
1979,
pp.
356,
379).
It
exceeds
mere
Zoroastrian
parlance,
however,
when
the
Manichean
elect
are
addressed
with
the
otherwise
exclusively
divine
title
of
yazad
(pl.
yazda@n).
The
reason
for
this
remarkable
practice
is
certainly
some
kind
of
deification
of
the
Manichean
clergy.
A
Coptic
Kephalaion
confirms
this
assumption
(cf.
Keph.
81,
the
fasting
of
the
elect
engenders
angels;
Keph.
88:
"The
elect
are]
gods
as
they
stand
firm
in
the
image
of
the
gods.").
This
deification
is,
in
my
view,
on
account
of
the
miraculous
ability
of
the
Manichean
elect
to
liberate
the
particles
of
the
Living
Soul
from
what
they
eat
during
their
sacramental
meals,
and
thus
to
become
redeemers
of
the
deity
of
the
Living
Soul.
However,
the
human
frailty
of
these
"gods"
could
not
have
passed
unnoticed.
Thus,
an
Old
Turkish
hymn
ended
with
the
entreaty:
"Forgive
the
sin
of
the
gods!"
(Parth.
yazda@n
a@sta@r
hirza@
in
an
Uigur
hymn;
cf.
Zieme,
1975,
pp.
28,
29;
cf.
also
M
894
/V/3/
yzd÷n
÷stò÷r
hyrz÷
,
and
(defective)
M
870c
/2/).
The
reason
for
the
deification
of
the
clergy
may
therefore
have
been
to
give
prominence
to
the
high
rank
of
the
elect
above
the
lay
people,
rather
than
to
raise
the
clergy
onto
equal
standing
with
the
divine
pantheon.
Furthermore,
it
has
an
almost
Buddhist
ring
to
it
when
a
Coptic
psalm
makes
Mani,
as
the
Paraclete,
an
object
of
veneration
by
the
gods
(Allberry,
ed.,
1938,
pp.
36-38).
The
Iranian
names
of
the
Manichean
gods.
The
Manicheans
evidently
had
clear
ideas
about
what
characterized
their
outstanding
divine
beings.
They
stated,
for
instance,
that
the
ideal
personality
should
be
mild
like
the
First
Man,
severe
like
the
Living
Spirit,
beautiful
like
the
sun
god
(the
Third
Messenger),
wise
like
the
moon
god
(Jesus),
and
changeable
like
the
goddess
of
lightning
(the
Virgin
of
Light;
Le
Coq,
I,
pp.
24-25).
And
yet,
it
is
hardly
imaginable
that
the
somewhat
abstract
and
often
complicated
names
of
the
Manichean
divinities
could
have
been
of
much
help
in
making
those
gods
–
except
for
Jesus
–
into
concrete
objects
of
practical
worship
and
belief
(cf.
Gardner,
1995,
p.
XXV).
The
simple
believer
was
recommended
to
address
his
prayers
to
the
sun
and
the
moon,
the
visible
residences
and
symbols
of
divinity,
and
of
the
Third
Messenger
and
Jesus
in
particular
(Puech,
1979,
pp.
271-73;
Klimkeit,
p.
261,
l.
20).
Proper
names
of
familiar
gods
were
given
to
the
Manichean
divinities
in
the
East
of
Iran
where
the
Manichean
gods
were
identified
with
Zoroastrian
equivalents.
The
gods
remained
Manichean
throughout,
and
the
Zoroastrian
denominations
were
nothing
more
than
adaptable
renamings
(Schaeder,
1927,
pp.
135,
146).
And
yet
it
is
likely
that
a
god
Mihr
or
Ohrmazd
offered
himself
more
readily
for
worship
than
a
Third
Messenger
or
a
First
Man.
The
Iranian
renaming
of
the
Manichean
pantheon
may
well
have
strengthened
the
faith,
and
it
may
have
given
Eastern
Manicheism
a
more
polytheistic
appearance
than
it
originally
had.
North
African
Manicheism
presented
the
radical
counter-image,
where
the
idea
of
divine
monotheism
was
emphatically
stressed.
Alien
gods
in
the
Manichean
view.
The
gods
of
the
Zoroastrian
pantheon
were
neither
rejected
nor
negated,
but
instead
they
were
accommodated
by
being
identified
with
similar
Manichean
deities.
The
rationale
behind
such
treatment
was
the
presupposition
that
the
Zoroastrians
had
misunderstood
and
misinterpreted
the
nature
of
their
own
pantheon,
and
so
it
was
up
to
the
Manichean
church
to
correct
their
theology.
It
is
also
known
that
the
Manicheans
interpreted
some
details
of
Ancient
Greek
mythology
as
confirmation
of
their
own
worldview
(cf.
Baur,
1831;
repr.
Baur,
1973,
pp.
81-82).
But
there
is
no
indication
so
far
that
they
treated
the
gods
and
goddesses
of
the
Greaco-Roman
world
like
the
Iranian
gods.
What
we
do
know
is
that
the
Iranian
example
was
repeated
in
Chinese
Manicheism,
where
some
Manichean
deities
came
to
be
identified
with
certain
Buddhist
Bodhisattvas
and
Buddhas
(Bryder,
1985,
p.
122).
But
even
if
such
identification
was
widespread
in
Eastern
Manichean
theology,
it
must
not
be
generalized
universally.
An
obvious
exception
to
the
rule
is
the
presentation
of
four
Hindu
deities
on
the
famous
Manichean
miniature
MIK
4979a
/R/,
who
were
identified
by
P.
Banerjee
as
Brahma@,
Visánáu,
›iva
and
Ganáes‚a.
Their
suggested
identification
on
a
Manichean
miniature
with
the
Manichean
Fourfold
God
(God,
Light,
Power,
Wisdom)
is
highly
unlikely,
mainly
because
they
are
given
a
lowly
position
at
the
bottom
of
the
picture,
below
all
the
(human)
clerics
and
warriors
who
are
the
actors
in
the
scene.
The
repeatedly
expressed
alternative
explanation
of
these
gods
as
the
protective
spirits
of
the
Manichean
community
in
the
Ùaha@r-Tu©ri-country
is
preferable
(cf.
Gula‚csi,
2001,
pp.
72-73).
This
would
mean
that
the
Hindu
deities
were
accepted
as
gods,
but
given
a
subordinate
and
subservient
function.
Bibliography:
A.
Adam,
Texte
zum
Manichäismus,
Berlin,
1969.
C.
R.
C.
Allberry,
ed.,
A
Manichaean
Psalm-Book
II,
Stuttgart,
1938.
F.
C.
Andreas
and
W.
Henning,
"Mitteliranische
Manichaica
aus
Chinesisch-Turkestan
II,"
SPAW,
Phil.-hist.
Kl.,
Berlin,
1933,
pp.
294-363
(repr.
Henning,
1977,
pp.
191-260).
F.
C.
Andreas
and
W.
Henning,
"Mitteliranische
Manichaica
aus
Chinesisch-Turkestan
III,"
SPAW,
Phil.-hist.
Kl.,
Berlin,
1934,
pp.
846-912
(repr.
Henning,
1977,
pp.
275-339).
F.
C.
Baur,
Das
manichäische
Religionssystem
nach
den
Quellen
neu
untersucht
und
entwikelt,
Tübingen,
1831
(repr.
Hildesheim/New
York,
1973).
U.
Bianchi,
"Sur
la
the‚ologie
et
l'anthropologie
de
Mani,"
in
P.
Bilde
et.
al.,
eds.,
Apocryphon
Severini
presented
to
Søren
Giversen,
Aarhus,
1993,
pp.
19-28.
F.
de
Blois,
"Manes'
'Twin'
in
Iranian
and
non-Iranian
texts,"
forthcoming.
A.
Böhlig,
"Zum
Selbstverständnis
des
Manichäismus,"
in
W.
Sundermann
et
al.
eds.,
A
Green
Leaf.
Papers
in
Honour
of
Professor
Jes
P.
Asmussen
(Acta
Iranica
28),
Leiden,
1988,
pp.
317-338.
M.
Boyce,
A
Reader
in
Manichaean
Middle
Persia
and
Parthian,
Acta
Iranica
9,
Leiden
et
al.,
1975.
P.
Bryder,
The
Chinese
Transformation
of
Manichaeism.
A
Study
of
Chinese
Manichaean
Terminology,
n.p.,
1985.
Idem.
"
'...Where
the
faint
traces
of
Manichaeism
disappear',"
AoF
15/1,
1988,
pp.
201-8.
L.
Cirillo
and
A.
Van
Tongerloo
eds.,
Atti
del
Terzo
Congresso
Internationale
di
Studi
"Manicheismo
e
Oriente
Cristiano
Antico,"
ed.
L.
Cirillo
and
A.
Van
Tongerloo,
Louvain/Naples,
1997.
F.
Decret,
Aspects
du
maniche‚isme
dans
l'Afrique
romaine,
Paris,
1970.
Idem,
L'Afrique
maniche‚enne
(IVe-Ve
sieàcles)
I,
Paris,
1978.
Idem,
"Le
dogme
maniche‚en
fondamental
des
deux
principes
selon
Faustus
de
Milev,"
in
A.
Van
Tongerloo
and
S.
Giversen,
eds.,
Manichaica
selecta.
Studies
presented
to
Professor
Julien
Ries
on
the
occasion
of
his
seventieth
birthday,
Louvain,
1991,
pp.
59-69.
G.
Flügel,
ed.,
Mani,
seine
Lehre
und
seine
Schriften,
Leipzig,
1862.
M.
Franzmann,
"Jesus
in
the
Manichaean
Writings
–
Work
in
Progress,"
in
R.
E.
Emmerick
et
al.,
eds.,
Studia
Manichaica
IV.
Internationaler
Kongreß
zum
Manichäismus,
Berlin,
14.–18.
Juli
1997,
Berlin,
2000,
pp.
220-46.
I.
Gershevitch,
"The
Bactrian
fragment
in
Manichean
script,"
From
Hecateus
to
al-Ówa@rarizm^,
ed.
J.
Harmatta,
Budapest,
1984,
pp.
273-80.
I.
Gardner,
The
Kephalaia
of
the
Teacher.
The
Edited
Coptic
Manichaean
Texts
in
Translation
with
Commentary,
Leiden,
1995.
B.
Gharib,
"New
Light
on
Two
Words
in
the
Sogdian
Version
of
the
'Light
Paradise
or
the
Realm
of
Light',"
in
R.
E.
Emmerick
et
al.,
eds.,
Studia
Manichaica.
IV.
Internationaler
Kongreß
zum
Manichäismus,
Berlin,
14.
-
18.
Juli
1997,
Berlin
2000,
pp.
258-269.
D.
Gimaret
and
G.
Monnot,
Shahrastani,
Livre
des
religions
et
des
sectes
I,
Leuven,
1986.
Zs.
Gula‚csi,
Manichaean
Art
in
Berlin
Collections,
Turnhout,
2001.
W.
B.
Henning,
"Sogdian
Tales,"
BSOAS
11,
1945,
pp.
465-87.
Idem,
"
Two
Manichaean
Magical
Texts,
with
an
Excursus
on
the
Parthian
Ending
-e@nde@h,"BSOAS
12,
1947,
pp.
39-66.
Idem,
"A
Sogdian
Fragment
of
the
Manichaean
Cosmogony,"
BSOAS
12,
1948,
pp.
306-318.
Idem,
Selected
Papers
I-II,
(Acta
Iranica
14-15),
Leiden,
1977.
M.
Heuser,
"The
Manichaean
Myth
According
to
the
Coptic
Sources,"
tr.
M.
Franzmann,
in
M.
Heuser
and
H-J.
Klimkeit,
Studies
in
Manichaean
Literature
and
Art,
Leiden
etc.,
1998,
pp.
3-108.
Keph.:
Kephalaia
I,
ed.
H.
J.
Polotsky
and
A.
Böhlig,
Stuttgart,
1940.
H-J.
Klimkeit,
Hymnen
und
Gebete
der
Religion
des
Lichts.
Iranische
und
türkische
liturgische
Texte
der
Manichäer
Zentralasiens,
Abh.
der
Rheinisch-Westfalischen
Akad.
der
Wissenschaften.,
79,
1989.
A.
v.
Le
Coq,
Türkische
Manichaica
aus
Chotscho
I,
APAW,
1911;
Berlin
[1912].
H.
Leisegang,
Die
Gnosis,
Stuttgart,
1985.
R.
Merkelbach,
Mani
und
sein
Religionssystem,
Opladen,
1986.
H.
J.
Polotsky,
"Manichäismus,"
Paulys-Wissowa,
Suppl.
VI,
Stuttgart,
1935,
cols.
240-71;
partly
reprinted
in
Widengren,
1977,
pp.
101-144.
Idem
and
C.
Schmidt,
"Ein
Mani-Fund
in
Ägypten,"
SPAW,
Phil.-hist.
Kl.,
Berlin,
1933,
pp.
4-90;
partly
reprinted
in
Widengren
1977,
pp.
67-97.
H-Ch.
Puech,
"Liturgie
et
pratique
rituelles,"
Sur
le
Maniche‚isme
et
autres
essais,
Paris,
1979,
pp.
235-394.
S.
G.
Richter,
"Bemerkungen
zu
den
verschiedenen
'Jesus-Figuren'
im
Manichäismus,"
in
J.
Van
Oort,
O.
Wermelinger
and
G.
Wurst,
eds.,
Augustine
and
Manichaeism
in
the
Latin
West.
Proceedings
of
the
Fribourg-Utrecht
International
Symposium
of
the
IAMS,
Leiden,
2001,
pp.
174–84.
K.
Rudolph,
Gnosis,
San
Francisco,
1993.
Idem,
Gnosis
und
spätantike
Religionsgeschichte.
Gesammelte
Aufsätze,
Leiden,
1996.
E.
Sachau,
ed.
and
tr.,
Al-Beruni's
India
I,
London,
1888.
H.
H.
Schaeder,
Urform
und
Fortbildungen
des
manichäischen
Systems,
Leipzig/Berlin,
1927.
W.
Sundermann,
"Namen
von
Göttern,
Dämonen
und
Menschen
in
iranischen
Versionen
des
manichäischen
Mythos,"
AoF
6,
1979,
pp.
95-133.
Idem,
Mitteliranische
manichäische
Texte
kirchengeschichtlichen
Inhalts,
Berliner
Turfantexte
XI,
Berlin,
1981.
Idem,
"Der
Lebendige
Geist
als
Verführer
der
Dämonen,"
in
A.
Van
Tongerloo
and
S.
Giversen,
eds.,
Manichaica
selecta.
Studies
presented
to
Professor
Julien
Ries
on
the
occasion
of
his
seventieth
birthday,
Louvain,
1991,
pp.
339-42
(repr.
Sundermann,
2001,
pp.
827-31).
Idem,
Der
Sermon
vom
Licht-Nous.
Eine
Lehrschrift
des
östlichen
Manichäismus,
Berliner
Turfantexte
XVII,
Berlin,
1992a.
Idem,
"Iranische
Kephalaiatexte?"
in
G.
Wiessner
and
H-J.
Klimkeit,
eds.,
Studia
Manichaica
II,
Wiesbaden,
1992b,
pp.
305-318
(repr.
Sundermann,
2001,
pp.
667-81).
Idem,
"Eine
Liste
manichäischer
Götter
in
soghdischer
Sprache,"
in
C.
Elsas
et.
al.,
eds.,
Tradition
und
Translation.
Festschrift
für
Carsten
Colpe
zum
65.
Geburtstag,
Berlin/New
York,
1994,
pp.
452-62
(repr.
Sundermann,
2001,
pp.
833-45).
Idem,
"Eva
illuminatrix,"
in
H.
Preissler
et
al.,
eds.,
Gnosisforschung
und
Religionsgeschichte.
Festschrift
für
Kurt
Rudolph
zum
65.
Geburtstag,
Marburg,
1994,
pp.
317-27
(repr.
Sundermann,
2001,
pp.
877-88).
Idem,
Der
Sermon
von
der
Seele.
Eine
Lehrschrift
des
östlichen
Manichäismus,
Berliner
Turfantexte
XIX,
Turnhout,
1997.
Idem,
Manichaica
Iranica.
Ausgewählte
Schriften
von
Werner
Sundermann
I-II,
ed.
Chr.
Reck
et
al.,
Rome,
2001.
Idem,
"God
and
his
adversary
in
Manichaeism.
The
case
of
the
'Enthymesis
of
Death'
and
the
'Enthymesis
of
Life',"
forthcoming.
S.
H®
Taqiza@da
and
A.
A.
ˆira@zi,
Ma@ni
o
din-e
u
(Mani
and
his
religion),
Tehran,
1956.
M.
Tardieu,
Le
Maniche‚isme,
Paris,
1981.
Idem,
Écrites
gnostiques,
Codex
de
Berlin,
Paris,
1984.
Theodore
bar
Ko@nay,
Liber
Scholiorum,
ed.
Addai
Scher,
CSCO
69,
Scriptores
Syri
26,
Louvain,
1960;
tr.
R.
Hespel
and
R.
Draguet
as
Livre
des
Scolies
(recension
de
Se‚ert)
II,
CSCO
432,
Scriptores
Syri
188,
Louvain,
1982.
P.
W.
Van
der
Horst
and
J.
Mansfeld,
An
Alexandrian
Platonist
against
Dualism.
Alexander
of
Lycopolis'
Treatise
'Critique
of
the
Doctrines
of
Manichaeus',
Leiden,
1974.
P.
Van
Lindt,
The
Names
of
Manichaean
Mythological
Figures.
A
Comparative
Study
on
Terminology
in
the
Coptic
Sources,
Wiesbaden,
1992.
Idem,
"Adamas,
the
Belligerent
Hero,"
in
P.
Bilde
et
al.,
eds.,
Apocryphon
Severini
presented
to
Søren
Giversen,
Aarhus,
1993,
pp.
95-105.
A.
Van
Tongerloo,
"The
Father
of
Greatness,"
in
H.
Preissler
et
al.,
eds.,
Gnosisforschung
und
Religionsgeschichte.
Festschrift
für
Kurt
Rudolph
zum
65.
Geburtstag,
Marburg,
1994,
329-42.
A.
Van
Tongerloo
and
J.
Van
Oort,
eds.,
The
Manichaean
NOYS.
Proceedings
of
the
International
Symposium
organized
in
Louvain
from
31
July
to
3
August
1991,
Louvain,
1995.
A.
Van
Tongerloo,
"Manichaean
female
deities,"
in
L.
Cirillo
and
A.
Van
Tongerloo
eds.,
Atti
del
Terzo
Congresso
Internationale
di
Studi
"Manicheismo
e
Oriente
Cristiano
Antico,"
Louvain/Naples,
1997,
pp.
361-74.
Louvain,
2001.
A.
Villey,
Alexandre
de
Lycopolis.
Contre
la
doctrine
de
Mani,
Paris,
1985.
E.
Waldschmidt
and
W.
Lentz,
"Manichäische
Dogmatik
aus
chinesischen
und
iranischen
Texten,"
SPAW,
Phil.-Hist.
Kl.,
Berlin,
1933,
pp.
478-607.
G.
Widengren,
ed.,
Der
Manichäismus,
Darmstadt,
1977.
Lin
Wushu,
"A
New
Find
of
Manichaean
Stone
Carving
in
Fujian,
China,"
Manichaean
Studies
Newsletter
1,
1989,
pp.
22-27.
P.
Zieme,
Manichäisch-türkische
Texte,
Berliner
Turfantexte
V,
Berlin,
1975.
(I
thank
Desmond
Durkin-Meisterernst
and
Chrinstiane
Reck
for
valuable
help
and
advice).
(Werner
Sundermann)
|