Few areas in religious studies have benefited as much from continuing textual discoveries as that of Manichaeism. As a result, meetings bringing together Manichaean scholars working on the newly discovered genuine Manichaean texts from Egypt and Central Asia with patristic scholars researching on anti-Manichaean texts authored by Fathers such as Augustine, Evodius and Epiphanius take place regularly. The International Association of Manichaean Studies, for instance, sponsors a major international symposium once every four years. However, because of the high level of linguistic demands for research on newly discovered Manichaean texts, in recent years there have tended to be regular regional meetings focusing on Eastern Manichaeism attended by scholars researching on Manichaean texts in Middle Iranian, Old Turkish and Chinese from Turfan, Dunhuang and Xiabu and separate meetings for scholars researching on texts in Coptic, Greek and Latin from Egypt and North Africa. Given the importance of Manichaeism to the intellectual evolution of Augustine, the continuing interest of patristic scholars in Manichaeism is unabated. However, it must be pointed out that because Manichaeism is a ‘source-rich’ area of research and as such qualifies for international research funding, scholars active in Manichaean research, including the present reviewer, have pushed for Manichaean Studies to become a discipline in its own right independent of patristic studies. The success of such a move has also seen a steadily growing separation between Manichaeism and Early Christian Studies. The Pretoria Congress of 2019, organised by Johannes van Oort, which had a strong representation of leading patristic scholars among the attendees, is a timely reminder of the need for scholars in Early Christianity to take notice of the rapid pace of progress in Manichaean Studies especially in the decipherment of authentic Manichaean texts from Egypt found in the last century.
The organisers of the Pretoria Congress have broken new ground in inviting scholars researching on second- and third-century Christianity. The first essay of the volume, by Josef Lössl, focuses on the Syrian Christian ascetic Tatian who flourished almost a century before Mani. Tatian's ‘Assyrian’ origin, his teaching on asceticism, and his possible influence by Gnosticism have long been of interest to scholars of Manichaeism, as has his alleged authorship of the Diatessarōn. Lössl presents Manichaean scholars with an informative summary of Tatian's teaching especially on soul and spiritual matter. For Lössl, Assyrian does not necessarily mean Mesopotamian but that Tatian originated from the eastern fringe of the Roman Empire (pp. 6–8). Lössl does not claim that Tatian's teaching as exemplified in the Oratio ad Graecos had any direct influence on Mani, but that Tatian is worth looking at because he was a near contemporary Syrian writer who had made a permanent impact on Syrian Christianity (p. 23). A major question for Manichaean scholars is how much access Mani had to Greek Christian writings or Syriac Christian writings of Greek origin. To Lössl's very full bibliographical references on Tatian should be added N. Andrade, Syrian identity in the Greco-Roman world (Cambridge 2013) which thoroughly discusses Tatian's ‘Assyrian/Syrian’ origins and his debt to Greek paideia (pp. 261–4, 284–6). However, one area of Tatianic influence on Manichaeism which could not be avoided is the use of the Diatessarōn by Mani and the early Manichaean texts. This is fully discussed in the contribution by Zsuzsanna Gulácsi (pp. 35–50) which argues convincingly for the influence of the Diatessarōn on the Berlin Kephalaia. It also draws attention to the important Parthian fragment M4570, which is clearly based on a harmonised account of Christ's passion but which, interestingly, might not have originated from the Diatessarōn.
For a volume titled Manichaeism and early Christianity, one would expect at least a cluster of papers on the study of Manichaean texts from Roman Egypt, especially the Coptic texts from Medinet Madi and Kellis. The material from Medinet Madi, discovered by Carl Schmidt in Cairo in the early 1930s, consisting of seven codices in Coptic and now in Berlin and in Dublin, is the subject of two insightful studies in the volume under review, one by Iain Gardner on the Dublin Kephalaia Codex and the other by Zsuzsanna Gulácsi on the influence of the Diatessarōn on the Berlin Kephalaia as already mentioned. Gardner's study is focused on a peculiar quire in the Dublin Kephalaia and the possibility that it might be unrelated to the Kephalaia but be actually part of the Book of Mysteries. This important canonical work of Mani, the content of which is known to us through a list of chapter headings in the Arabic Fihrist of Al-Nadim, is also the subject of a contribution in the volume by Dylan Burns (pp. 70–97). Gardner's study also suggests importantly that the Book of Mysteries might have contained a Manichaean interpretation of the Gospel of James and discusses the relevance of M28 I – a bifolio in Middle Persian in the Manichaean script from Turfan which contains strong Christian elements. Unfortunately the lack of an Iranologist on the editorial board of the volume has resulted in peculiarities in the method of citation by Gardner for this important Eastern Manichaean text. ‘M28I, ri, 14–18’ at p. 58 m. 18, for example, should have been given as ‘M28 I R I 14–18’. The same text is also considered by Michel Tardieu in the light of the influence of Marcionism on Mani (pp. 24–34), especially regarding the polemical reference to ‘the god of Marcion’. The relationship between Manichaeanism and the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (a work regarded as Manichaean by Cyril of Jerusalem) from Nag Hammadi is fully explored by René Falkenberg who examines in his study (pp. 98–127) both verbatim quotations from and strong allusions to the Gospel found in Coptic and Parthian Manichaean texts. All these studies enrich our knowledge of the religious culture of third-century Mesopotamia and are fundamental to any future discussion on the religious traditions that Mani drew from in formulating his own teaching.
The Manichaean material from late antiquity recovered from Kellis in the Dakleh Oasis in the last quarter of the twentieth century is unique in that it contains not only liturgical and doctrinal texts but also private letters emanating from the Manichaean community. This still relatively new material has been put to excellent use by Mattaias Brand in his attempt to identify a patron for the Manichaean community in this remote part of Roman Egypt. While the hagiographical accounts of the conversion of sovereigns and chieftains in Western Manichaean texts certainly need to be treated with caution, the one great successful conversion story which certainly took place but is not mentioned by Brand was that of the Uygur Khaghan Böyü, whose lavish patronage of the sect enabled it to be not just a religio licita but also a state religion in the Turfan Oasis for a century (mid ninth – mid tenth century) with major impact on the diffusion and survival of Manichaeism in East Asia.
The second half of the volume is devoted entirely to anti-Manichaean writings. The oldest and most influential polemical text against the sect is the so-called Acta Archelai attributed to Hegemonius in which Mani is portrayed as a failed miracle-worker. The work enjoyed huge circulation in late antiquity and in the Middle Ages and its hagiographical and historical elements are examined by Madeleine Scopello (pp. 152–85). The Acta depicts a debate between Mani and Archelaus, the bishop of a frontier Roman city called Carchar which most scholars think was Carrhae (modern Harran) where Crassus lost his legions and his life against the Parthians in 53 bce. Although known for being a centre of paganism, the city did have a bishop in late antiquity, but probably not in the time of Mani. A more interesting fact, not mentioned by Scopello, is that Carrhae was a Macedonian foundation and Archela(i)os was a very common Macedonian name.
The volume contains two studies on Eastern Fathers who wrote against the sect. Ephraim of Edessa deserves special treatment, as he would have been able to read original Manichaean texts in Syriac, even though he might have had some problems with the special Estrangelo script developed by Mani to give his writings a distinctive look. Robert Morehouse (pp. 186–224) looks at the ‘polemic of lineage’ from Bardaisan to Mani in Ephraim's writings, especially in his hymns. Though Ephraim condemned many heresies, the doctrines of Marcion, Bardaisan and Mani are often singled out for special condemnation as he saw the lineage ultimately traced back to the Serpent in the Garden. The very full bibliography curiously omits one title which also deals with the same subject – E. Beck, Ephräms Polemikinian Mani und die Manichäer im Rahmen der zeitgenössischen griechischen Polemik und der des Augustinus (Louvain 1978). Useful comments on Ephraim's hymns as a source for hereseological ‘genealogy’ can also be found in J. M. Lieu, Marcion and the making of a heretic (Cambridge 2015), 155–60. The Adversus Manichaeos of John Chrysostom, bishop of Antioch, which is rarely cited by Manichaean scholars, receives a substantial study by Chris de Wet (pp. 225–52). The great orator and preacher, despite the undoubted presence of the sect in the Syrian capital, exhibits little knowledge of genuine Manichaean writings but his polemic is valuable in terms of what many churchmen saw in Manichaeism as vestiges of the teachings of Valentinus and of Marcion.
Given his known Manichaean past and his post-conversion zeal against the sect, Augustine of Hippo takes centre stage in this part of the book under review, with four papers based on his voluminous writings against the sect. Johannes van Oort's study (pp. 253–87) looks at one of the lost works of Augustine, De pulchro et apto, known to us from just a handful of references in the Confessions, and argues cogently (as he has done elsewhere, cf. Revue d’études augustiniennes et patrisques lxvi/2 [2021], 293–324) for a Manichaean ‘template’ for the work. Therese Fuhrer examines in her contribution (pp. 288–301) the ‘scenario’ of one of Augustine's best known earlier works, the De beata vita, and draws attention to a number of metaphors which are of significance in Coptic Manichaean writings. Faustus of Milevis, who features so prominently as the evil genius in Augustine's Confessions, is often accused, especially by Paula Frederiksen, of being virulently anti-Jewish in the Adversus Iudaeos rhetorical tradition of early Christian writings. An important study of Faustus’ extant apologetic writing by Jason BeDuhn (pp. 302–33), in close dialogue with Frederiksen, shows that Faustus did have something positive to say about Jews, especially their devotion to their religion, and draws attention to the fact that there was no systematic anti-Jewish rhetoric in genuine Manichaean writings. In late life Augustine was accused of being a Pelagian and anti-Manichaean themes feature regularly in Augustine's anti-Pelagian writings. Nils Arne Pedersen (pp. 324–50) challenges the well-held theory of Bohlin (1957) that Pelagius built his theology around the need to refute the determinism of Mani's teaching. Pedersen points out that Pelagius’ extant writings show little real knowledge of Manichaeism, targeting mainly stereotypes of Manichaean doctrine circulated by the Church. The oft-neglected work of Evodius, a life-long friend of Augustine, against the Manichaeans receives a well-deserved study by Aäron Vanspauwen (pp. 351–73), who demonstrates that the work contains citations from genuine Manichaean works and valuable variant readings.
The more shadowy history of Manichaeism in the Byzantine period is covered by two studies. The first, by Rea Matsangou (pp. 374–400), examines the reasons why several extreme ascetic groups like the Encratites, the Saccophoroi and Messalians were regarded as offspring of Manichaeism. The second, by Bayard Bennett (pp. 401–31), looks at the way in which anti-Manichaean writings constituted a necessary part of the Neo-Platonic training of Byzantine theologians. Bennett's study also includes a valuable critical edition, with translation, of the ‘Proposition of a Manichaean’ (Πρότασις Μανιχαίου) – a short tract prefacing a number of anti-Manichaean texts from the Byzantine period (pp. 406–11).
In short the volume gives an excellent snapshot of current research on ‘Western’ Manichaeism. The absence of any major study of the Greek Cologne Mani-Codex is strongly felt as this miniaturizedd parchment-codex did more than any text to bridge Manichaean and Patristic Studies in the last quarter of a century. Perhaps it will feature prominently in the next conference on ‘Manichaeism and Early Christianity’.
