Mani's Book of Mysteries: Prolegomena to a New Look
ARAM, 22 (2010) 321-334. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.22.0.2131043
MANI’S BOOK OF MYSTERIES: PROLEGOMENA TO A NEW LOOK AT MANI, THE ‘BAPTISTS’ AND THE MANDAEANS
Prof. IAIN GARDNER (University of Sydney)
Abstract
Before the reading of the Cologne Mani Codex (from 1969 on) scholars such as E.S. Drower commonly assumed that Mani was brought up in a Mandaean community. However, the CMC appeared to identify the ‘baptists’ of Mani’s youth as Elchasaites, and the trajectory of research changed leaving the question of Mani’s relationship with the Mandaeans in limbo. This paper does not attempt to solve this problem, but recent reports of an otherwise unknown Mandaean scroll known as the Diwan d-Razia suggest a new avenue of approach: To study Mani’s own lost Book of Mysteries as a site for debate between the apostle and other religious communities of the time. A close analy- sis of all available evidence is made, including a tentative reconstruction of the lost work in outline, based on the chapter headings preserved by al-Nadim in his Fihrist. Whilst various important points of contact with Mandaean teachings are noted, the overall conclusion is that Mani’s Book of Mysteries would have focussed firstly on testimonies about Jesus, and thereafter on a telling of the crucial moments in cosmic and redemptive history. The work evidences dialogue with Bardaisan and his followers, and may well have accessed Sethian traditions. The problematic question of Mani’s relation to nascent Mandaeism is highlighted, but it is shown that this work is unlikely to have had much in common with a priestly scroll such as we imagine the Diwan d-Razia to be, despite any superficially similar esoteric purpose.
Before the reading of the Cologne Mani-Codex (from 1969 on) scholars such as E.S. Drower commonly assumed that Mani was brought up in a Mandaean community. However, based on the newly-discovered Greek text (which is a kind of biography of Mani or nascent ‘gospel’), and most obviously the occur- rence there of the name Alchasaios, the dominant consensus rapidly came to identify the ‘baptists’ of Mani’s youth as ‘Elchasaites’. The trajectory of research turned to the teachings and practice of that group, leaving the question of Mani’s relationship with the Mandaeans in limbo. One should note that the two posi- tions have generally been regarded as irreconcilable; indeed, this is a conclusion that has hardly been questioned. This paper will not attempt to solve this problem, but it will try to clear some ground (as it were) by studying Mani’s lost Book of Mysteries as a site for debate between the apostle and other religious communities of his time. I may remark that I have throughout my career felt that the question of Mandaean
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 321321 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 322 MANI’S BOOK OF MYSTERIES
connections to Mani and the early Manichaean community has been somewhat unwisely put aside. These connections are many and deeply embedded in the earliest strata of the tradition. At the same time, there are evident problems with the Elchasaite thesis; not least that the term archegos used for Alchasaios in the Cologne Mani-Codex could simply mean the ‘leader’ of the baptists (a well-attested usage in Manichaean tradition including other instances in the same text)1 rather than ‘founder’.2 My present interest in the Book of Mysteries was sparked when I learnt from Ganzibra Brikha H.S. Nasoraia that there exists a Mandaean scroll known as the Book of Mysteries (Diwan d-Razia), a work unknown to western scholar- ship but preserved within the contemporary community. I wondered if the text might contain new information about the question of Mandaean-Manichaean origins. It appears that the text belongs to the esoteric tradition, and certainly it is a matter for the priests and holders of the text to determine whether and when its contents might be made public. In the meantime, I take the opportu- nity to make a detailed study of such information that exists about Mani’s own lost work. Indeed, I believe that I can advance here a substantially accurate account of what his Book of Mysteries actually contained. In one of the early bema- psalms Mani is compared to a great physician who has come for the healing of all and spread out his medicine-chest, inviting us to be cured. Mani’s books are compared to his instruments, and the Book of Mysteries is the surgeon’s knife.3 Let us investigate what that might mean. Remarkably, the chapter titles of the work are preserved in Arabic by al-Nadim in his encyclopaedic work, the Fihrist (catalogue); which was written in the Xth century CE but utilised a range of earlier sources. Although there are a number of problems with textual readings evident in the manuscript tradition, and the bare titles are famously enigmatic, careful consideration of each and the sequence of themes can illuminate the concerns, (and even to some extent the actual contents), of Mani’s lost work.
1 Notably, (e.g.) CMC 9, 3; 85, 20. 2 The standard Elchasaite thesis (including this very point) has been seriously critiqued by G.P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai, J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen, 1985; who has returned to the issue in an appendix to his Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Tradi- tions, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 2006: 170-184. 3 Thus A Manichaean Psalm-Book II, ed. C.R.C. Allberry, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1938 (= PsBk2.) 46: 28; see no. CCXLI. There is a summary and discussion of the various canon lists in different languages by J.C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony, Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, 1992: 9-19. Note also that in al-Nadim’s list of the titles of the Epistles of Mani (which includes some written by the imams who succeeded him) there is one, now lost of course, named: ‘of ‘Abd Yal (or Abdiel?) about the Book of Mysteries (Safar al-Asrar)’.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 322322 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 I. GARDNER 323
THE EIGHTEEN CHAPTERS OF MANI’S BOOK OF MYSTERIES AS LISTED BY AL-NADIM:4
1. An account of the Daysaniyya: Three of the chapters in al-Nadim’s list concern the Bardesanites, the fol- lowers and school of Bardaisan of Edessa (whose connection to Mani is well known).5 Some of their communities had indeed settled in lower Mesopotamia,6 i.e. the same region as the sect of Mani’s upbringing.7 It is to be noted that Bardaisan had himself written a Book of Mysteries.8 Unfortunately, this is now lost and we do not know its contents; but scholars are naturally inclined to regard Mani’s own work as a kind of response to the former. We can suppose, then, that this served as a kind of introduction to the new book.
29. The testimony of Yastasif on the Beloved: Yastasif (or Vishtaspa) is Hystaspes, the king said to have been converted by Zarathustra / Zoroaster, and often associated with the latter in Manichaean10
4 This translation has been adapted from that of M. Laffan published in I. Gardner, S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004: 155. Although I make no claim to be a competent Arabist, I have made a number of changes to reflect my own understanding of the text (as well as re-formatting to suit my presentation). I acknowledge my careful consideration of the work of previous scholars, including in particular the following transla- tions (also commentary and notes) by: G. Flügel, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften, 1862 repr. Biblio Verlag, Osnabrück, 1969: 102-103, 355-361; K. Kessler, Mani. Forschungen über die manichäische Religion, Georg Reimer, Berlin, 1889: 191-198; P. Alfaric, Les écritures mani- chéennes, II, E. Nourry, Paris, 1919: 17-21; O. Klíma, Manis Zeit und Leben, Verlag der Tschecho- slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Prag, 1962: 405-407; A. Adam, ed., Texte zum Manich- äismus, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1969: 8-9; B. Dodge, The Fihrist of al-Nadim, II, Columbia University Press, New York, 1970: 797-798; M. Tardieu, Manichaeism, tr. M.B. DeBevoise, Univer- sity of Illinois Press, Chicago, 2008: 38-41; and an unpublished draft typescript with English transla- tion and notes by F. de Blois kindly provided by the author, dated 2002. Other sources for my understanding (including important comments by J. Reeves) are referred to elsewhere. I note the assistance of Dr. Kevin Kaatz in collecting material for me on the subject. 5 Thus Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan, I / II, ed. C.W. Mitchell, Williams & Northgate, London, 1912 / 1921. For a summary of Bardaisan’s teachings, and their relationship to those of Mani, see S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1985: 41-44. 6 Thus al-Nadim, Fihrist (tr. B. Dodge p. 806): ‘.. the adherents of Ibn Daysan were in the regions of al-Bata‘ih ..’. Dodge n. 344 comments that this indicates ‘the marshlands between Wasit and al-Basrah’. 7 Al-Nadim further states (ibid. p. 811, and see p. 774) that the mughtasilah (the Arabic term he uses for the group amongst whom Mani was brought up, and equivalent to the ‘baptists’ of the Cologne Mani-Codex) ‘are very numerous in the regions of al-Bata’ih ..’. 8 Thus Ephraim, Hymns against the Heresies, 1: 14 and 56: 9 (ed. E. Beck, CSCO 170, Syr. 77). 9 N.b. Adam, op. cit. 1969: 9 reads an extra chapter (bab) at this point, so that what we num- ber as 2 becomes 3 to reach a total of nineteen. 10 E.g. H.-J. Polotsky, A. Böhlig, Kephalaia, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1940, 1966, ed. W.-P. Funk 1999, 2000 (= Keph1), 12: 17-19.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 323323 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 324 MANI’S BOOK OF MYSTERIES
(and other) sources. Reeves11 has argued convincingly that the reference here is to the so-called Oracles of Hystaspes, an originally pre-Christian Parthian apocalypse which Mani is likely to have known in its revised Judaeo-Christian form. In this case, whilst the ‘Beloved (al-habib)’ might originally have been the Iranian divinity Aryaman, for Mani it was surely Jesus; who indeed is com- monly given such an epithet in the tradition.12 Thus Mani begins to develop his work with a quotation from the Oracles of Hystaspes that he uses to justify his own understanding of Jesus.
3. The testimony of… about himself given to Ya‘qub:
Unfortunately, the source used here is lost in the manuscript tradition, but Tardieu comments that the exegetical method would surely be the same as in the previous chapter; i.e. Mani incorporates a piece of pseudepigraphical speculation in support of an aspect of his own teaching.13 Corresponding to the title of ch. 5 (infra), and given that the surrounding chapters (2 and 4) are also concerned with Jesus, it is most probable that the title read: The testimony of [Jesus] about himself given to Ya’qub. Although we can not know exactly the source from which Mani quotes here, it is likely to be of the type repre- sented by the (two) Nag Hammadi tractates known as the Apocalypse of James.
4. The son of the widow:
Al-Nadim himself provides a gloss: Mani means the crucified Messiah, crucified by the Jews. It is hard to avoid the sense that ‘son of the widow’14
11 J.C. Reeves, ‘An Enochic Citation in Barnabas 4:3 and the Oracles of Hystaspes’, Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. J.C. Reeves, J. Kampen, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1994: 260-277 ; also see F. de Blois, N. Sims-Williams, (ed.), Dictionary of Manichaean Texts. Volume II. Texts from Iraq and Iran, Brepols, Turnhout. 2006: 32b. The section on Arabic sources was prepared by de Blois. 12 Reeves, ibid. n. 37, provides references to Jesus the Beloved and Yiso’ aryaman in Man- ichaean sources (to which we can add from the Coptic e.g. Keph1. 76: 21-22, and see 182: 20-21). Of course, there is a specific Manichaean divinity termed: ‘The Beloved of the Lights’ (e.g. Keph1. 43: 32-34, 82: 7-8); but it is difficult to imagine how this figure could relate to any ‘testimony’ of Hystaspes. 13 Thus Tardieu, op. cit. 2008: 38-39. He further makes a rather oblique reference to the Prayer of Joseph and the angel Jacob (i.e. the work known primarily from quotations by Origen). Various scholars have attempted speculative interpretations of this chapter, none of which are very convincing. On the one hand one might indeed think of some Jewish tradition, e.g. about Jacob wrestling with God (Gen. 32: 24-32); but others have looked to the various Jameses of the early Christian literature. Certainly, the Coptic Manichaean Psalm-Book knows at least two of the latter (e.g. PsBk2. 194: 10 and 14): James ‘the spring of the new wisdom’ and ‘the other James .. the true brother of the lord’. 14 See further de Blois, Sims-Williams, op. cit. 2006: 33b. I do not find convincing Tardieu’s interpretation of ‘Jesus, son of Mary, widow of Joseph’ (op. cit. 2008: 39); nor that of Klima,
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 324324 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 I. GARDNER 325
has a negative connotation. Manichaean texts do indeed preserve hints of an eso- teric tradition of the so-called ‘gnostic’ type, where the apparent tragedy of the crucifixion masks a deeper spiritual reality. Whilst these are difficult to reconcile with the many passages which preserve an essentially straightforward account,15 one is certainly inclined to suppose that Mani here unveiled the mystery that it was ‘another’ who was crucified on the cross. Thus Flügel16 discusses at this point the important quotation from Mani’s Fundamental Epistle preserved by Evodius: ‘The enemy, who hoped to have crucified that same saviour, the father of the righteous, was himself crucified (ipse est crucifixus): for at that time, appearance and real event were distinct’.17 Following this line of reason, we can suppose that ‘the son of the widow’ is a polemical figure, the material Jesus bar Maryam, in contrast to the Son of God. This duplication reaches its remarkable conclusion in Mandaean tradition where Jesus ‘the false Messiah’ attempts to imitate and supplant Anush Uthra.18 Interestingly, in the (Nag Hammadi) ‘first’ Apocalypse of James there are intimations of similar teachings, although far less developed or explicit: ‘.. I shall reveal to (the archons) that he can not be seized ..’; (and subsequently) ‘.. never have I suffered in any way .. but this (body?) existed as a type of the archons, and it deserved to be destroyed through them’.19 Given the title of the previous ch. 3 in al-Nadim’s list, I am inclined to see ch. 4 as the explication of the meaning of the crucifixion ‘mystery’ which has just been related in a revelation of this type made by Jesus to James.20
5. The testimony of Jesus about himself as given to Judas:
Most scholars have preferred here ‘Judea’21 or ‘the Jews’; but the personal name ‘Judas’ is the better reading. As with the other chapters entitled ‘testimony’,
who argues an error for ‘son of the virgin’ (op. cit. 1962: 482-483 n. 33). Nor can the reference be to the son of the widow of Zarephath (or of Nain). 15 E.g. Keph1. 12: 29 - 13: 10. I discuss the accounts of the crucifixion in some detail in my article: ‘The docetic Jesus’ (appendix to I. Gardner, Coptic Theological Papyri II, Verlag Brüder Hollinek, Wien, 1988: 57-85 [78-85]). 16 G. Flügel, op. cit. (1862) 1969: 255. 17 Evodius, de fide 28 (tr. in Gardner, Lieu, op. cit. 2004: 171). 18 Thus e.g. Right Ginza 200 (following E. Lupieri, The Mandaeans, tr. C. Hindley, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2002: 244): ‘(The lying Messiah) says: “I am God, son of God, whom my father has sent here”. He explains to you: “I am the first messenger, I am Hibil Ziwa, I have come from on high”. But he is not Hibil Ziwa … On the contrary, Anush Uthra comes and reaches Jerusalem …’ (etc). 19 NHC V, 3, 30, 2-3 and 31, 18-26. 20 Unfortunately, I can not spot in the extant James pseudepigrapha anything that might explain the enigmatic ‘son of the widow’. However, the naming of an Arsinoe as a female disci- ple of Jesus in Manichaean literature (PsBk2. 192: 24, 194: 22, and in the Parthian tradition) is a further indication of connections to the Apocalypse of James (the name restored at 40, 26 is its only other recorded occurence). This is noted also by R. Bauckham, Gospel Women, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2002: 238, who suggests dependance on a common source. 21 Thus, e.g., de Blois, Sims-Williams, op. cit. 2006: 88b.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 325325 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 326 MANI’S BOOK OF MYSTERIES
the sense must be that Mani appeals to an authoritative textual tradition (which modern scholars would regard as pseudepigraphic). The obvious extant example to compare with is the series of apocalypses quoted in the Cologne Mani-Codex.22 In this instance, one has an intriguing choice: Is the Judas of this testimony the Didymus Judas Thomas of the Gospel of Thomas (and related literature),23 or could it be the Iscariot as in the Gospel of Judas? Links between Mani and Thomas are generally supposed to be stronger than with Sethian traditions,24 and thus one is inclined to the former; but in view of the recent publication of the Tchacos codex (and some other hints discussed below at ch. 9), one should not entirely reject the possibility of the latter.
6. The commencement of the testimony of the right (hand) / righteous (one) as given after his victory:
Various persons are termed ‘righteous’ in the relevant literature, including Enoch, James ‘the just’, and ‘the righteous man of truth’ named as in the last church before Mani according to the Kephalaia.25 As it seems that one is looking for a work of pseudepigrapha, a possibility might be the Apocalypse of Enoch as quoted in the Cologne Mani-Codex, beginning: ‘I am Enoch the righteous’.26 However, it is by no means clear what ‘his victory’ might mean. An alterna- tive (and I think better) approach is to read the term (al-yamin)27 more literally as ‘the right hand’, a concept of great importance in both Manichaeism and Mandaeism,28 and moreover one that is basically synonymous with victory:
22 CMC pp. 47-62. The most detailed discussion is by J. C. Reeves, Heralds of That Good Realm, E.J. Brill, Leiden 1996. 23 Thus Tardieu, op. cit. 2008: 39. In particular, for ‘Thomas’ simply as Judas, see The Dia- logue of the Saviour passim. 24 It is clear that the Manichaeans used both the Gospel and the Acts of Thomas (where in particular there are a series of unresolved connections between the youthful prince in the ‘Hymn of the Pearl’ and Mani himself), as well as the complex web of traditions about the ‘twin’ (taw‘am). Nevertheless, traditions about Seth are certainly also evident (not least in the lengthy account about Adam and Eve recorded by an-Nadim and ascribed to Mani himself); though whether these are really ‘Sethian’ is another question. 25 Thus Keph1. 13: 30-31. The identity of this person (who follows after Paul) has been much discussed, with obvious candidates including Marcion, Bardaisan and perhaps Elchasai. Note also that ‘the man of proven righteousness’ is a synonym for Manda d-Hayye (thus Lupieri op. cit. 2002: 249). 26 CMC p. 58, discussed in Reeves op. cit. 1996: 184-185. This possibility is also supported by Tardieu, op. cit. 2008: 39. 27 On the Arabic text see further de Blois, Sims-Williams, op. cit. 2006: 88ab. De Blois dis- cusses how the manuscript reads yamini (variant yumna), both of which are feminine; and that thus the gender of ‘his victory’ would seem to require an emendation such as: ‘
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 326326 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 I. GARDNER 327
(e.g.) ‘May we be counted among those of the right hand and inherit our king- dom’.29 In this instance, there is the problem of what sort of pseudepigraphic text Mani is using. Pre-eminently, in Manichaeism it is the divine Living Spirit who is the ‘first right hand’,30 i.e. whose victory over the forces of evil and rescue of the First Man is the archetype of all salvific acts. This is good for sense; and it is not inherently improbable that Mani could have in mind some text ascribed to a saviour figure that he associated with the Living Spirit and his victory. For instance, the uthras (such as Hibil Ziwa) in Mandaic texts take very similar roles.31 Equally, there certainly are Manichaean hymns ascribed to various of the gods.32
7. The seven spirits: Interestingly, in the Cologne Mani-Codex, the previous ascription to Enoch is immediately followed by a reference to: ‘.. seven angels (who came down from) heaven’. Since ch. 6 is titled the ‘commencement of the testimony ..’, it is possible that the following chapters refer to the same work (as is the case in the CMC where four quotes from the Apocalypse of Enoch occur in succession). Nevertheless, I think it more likely that the ‘seven spirits’ are the planetary rulers, recalling the common Mandaean usage of ‘the seven (and the twelve)’.33 Thus the ‘victory’ of ch. 6 could well be linked to the ‘seven spirits’ of ch. 7, meaning those that were defeated.
8. The discourse on the four transitory (?) spirits: The meaning of the term ‘transitory’ (perhaps: ‘ephemeral’ or ‘transient’) is particularly problematic; and, also, as F. de Blois comments, the use of a masculine plural adjective after the feminine construction (i.e. the four spirits)
29 Thus PsBk2. 202: 20-21 (duplicated at 154: 12). 30 PsBk2. 2: 5. The tradition is even found in the Acta Archelai VII; which also explains that it is for this reason that Manichaeans shake each other by the right hand, as a sign that they are saved from the darkness. Keph1. ch. IX provides a schematic account of all the instances of the ‘right hand’; (n.b. here it is the Mother of Life who is the ‘first right hand’, 38: 20). 31 Thus, e.g., Right Ginza 5, 1. Of course, this very same term (as ginza yamina) is itself used for the right part of the Ginza rabba; but that is surely too much of a stretch for the meaning here, especially when ‘his victory’ would imply a person. 32 E.g. Thom Psalm VII, ‘That of the Living Spirit’. 33 Of course, the ‘seven angels’ and ‘seven planets’ are not mutually exclusive; see indeed Reeves’ discussion ibid. 1996: 189-190. Interestingly, Manichaean texts more rarely refer to sevens, as the numerical sequencing is dominantly pentadic; and also, with the sun and moon counted to the powers of light, there are only ‘five’ stars (see e.g. Keph1. ch. LXIX and passim). See further, T. Pettipiece, Pentadic Redaction in the Manichaean Kephalaia, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 2009. Nevertheless, there are important anomalies: see Keph1. 120: 12; and especially PsBk2. 108: 17-19, ‘.. stretch out to me now thy right hand that the seven demons (daimon) that are before me..’; 204: 1 + ff.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 327327 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 328 MANI’S BOOK OF MYSTERIES
‘seems very strange’.34 Furthermore, the enumeration recalls little in terms of Manichaean literature, beyond perhaps the four winds35 (the ‘four-faced’ Father seems hardly relevant). One possibility might be astrological, e.g. the quadrants. For instance, in one chapter of the Kephalaia Mani discusses how the entire ‘ruling-power’ (the collectivity of evil cosmic forces) is apportioned to the four parts of the universe;36 in another he quarters the circle of the zodiac.37 Chs. 7 and 8 together would thus be concerned with the ‘seven (planets) and the twelve (stars)’.
9. Laughter:
This appears bewildering, but my best suggestion is to understand the theme in terms of Jesus’ mockery38 of the ignorant, those so embedded in the material realm that they are indeed blind to the truth and stupid. This usage is charac- teristic especially of Sethian texts such as the Gospel of Judas.39 Whilst (at first) this might appear unlikely as a context for our passage here, in a magical text on which I am currently working, and which has strong connections to the Sethian literature of the II-III century CE, we find the following: ‘.. he laughed. They say that his laughter is not that of a man but is the laughter of the son of God’.40 What is particularly interesting is that the passage is found in the
34 See further his comments in de Blois, Sims-Williams, op. cit. 2006: 51b-52a. Thus some scholars have translated along the lines of: ‘.. the four spirits, the transient ones’. B. Dodge (op. cit. 1970: 798 n. 273) gives some options for the reading; seeming to prefer against other scholars al-ziwal, ‘the taking charge’. This might be preferable if I am correct that the context is astrological, i.e. ‘ruling powers’; though ‘transitory’ may also make sense here. 35 F. de Blois, ibid., notes that W.B. Henning compared the ‘four pure winds’ sent by Jesus in the Parthian text M42, (see F.C. Andreas, W.B. Henning. Mitteliranische Manichaica aus Chinesisch-Turkestan III, SPAW, Berlin, 1934: 880 n. 5); also the further references in H.-J. Klim- keit, Gnosis on the Silk Road, Harper, San Francisco, 1993: 130 n. 21. In Mandaean literature: ‘the four winds of the house’ (E.S. Drower, R. Macuch, op. cit. 1963: 36a). 36 Thus Keph1. ch. XLVII. 37 Ch. LXIX. Elsewhere in the same text (93: 26, 290: 3) there are rather obscure references to ‘four angels’ who seem to have a cosmological role. A quite different approach would be to associate this discourse on the ‘four spirits’ with the ‘four living creatures’ of much Jewish mystical speculation (Ezekiel 1: 5 etc., and see especially Revelation 1: 4, 3: 1, 4: 5+ff. for seven spirits of God before the throne and the four living creatures); or possibly the four ‘light aeons’ of Sethian cosmology. But these traditions are not much in evidence in extant Manichaean literature. 38 Interestingly, Tardieu op. cit. 2008: 39 prefers to read al-duhka ‘mockery’ rather than al- dahka ‘laughter’, although his interpretation of the chapter is entirely different (indeed opposite) to my own. 39 Thus GJudas 34: 2, 4, 7; and as a major theme in The Second Treatise of the Great Seth. In the latter text it is indeed ‘another’ who was crucified, whilst Jesus was rejoicing in the heights and ‘laughing at their ignorance’ (NHC VII, 2, 56, 1-19). This corresponds to my suggested interpretation of Book of Mysteries ch. 4. 40 P. Macquarie inv. 375, 9: 12-14. The text is being prepared for publication by M. Choat and I. Gardner.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 328328 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 I. GARDNER 329
context of Jesus’ descent through the aeons, changing his form to the likeness of the rulers. This provides a realistic context for our passage here, (especially when paired with the next chapter), for the same tradition is found in Manichaean literature where Jesus’ humiliation of the heavenly powers may directly pre- cede his descent and revelation to Adam.41 Here then is a direct link to Sethian traditions, especially as Jesus is said (rather surprising but noteworthy) to ‘assume Eve’.42
10. The testimony of Adam regarding Jesus:
This may be a testimony regarding the coming of Jesus (i.e. the Christ) that Mani has derived from some work such as the Apocalypse of Adam quoted in the Cologne Mani-Codex.43 However, I think it more likely to relate to the well- known episode in Manichaean literature where Jesus Splendour is the awakener and instructor of Adam.44 Earlier so-called ‘gnostic’ traditions, such as Sethian texts, present many variations on the story of Adam and Eve, the serpent and the tree of knowledge. The Genesis narrative is inverted and the receiving of gnosis is indeed an awakening; but the ‘saviour’ generally appears at least in some form as the serpent or the tree or Eve (i.e. the basic biblical narrative as from whence Adam received knowledge remains apparent). Manichaean texts represent a distinct advance in the tradition, as Jesus Splendour directly comes to Adam and there is no longer any serpent at all. In this the Mandaean texts are particularly close, replicating almost all the same features, except of course that it is Manda d-Hayye (or one of the other uthras) who appears instead of Jesus. The development of the tradition can be said to be signalled by the dif- ferent recensions of the Apocryphon of John. In the shorter version the Epinoia appears as an eagle on the tree of knowledge, (possibly deriving from some confusion between the Greek hiera ‘serpent’ and hierax ‘eagle’); whereas in the longer version Christ reveals to John that it was he himself (though still in the form of an eagle).45 If this episode was indeed the subject of ch. 10,
41 E.g. Keph1. 53: 28-54: 9; 59: 19-28. For Jesus’ mockery of the powers in his descent (using the same Coptic term sobe), see PsBk2. 193: 27-28; and compare the same recurrent theme in Mandaean texts, e.g. ‘I laughed at the planets (and) at what they planned and did, I dwelt amongst the Seven, but they laid no hand on me’ (E.S. Drower, ed., Sarh d-Qabin d-Sislam Rba: Explanatory Commentary on the Marriage Ceremony of the Great Sislam. Pontificio Istituto Bib- lico, Roma, 1950: 63). 42 Thus Keph1. 94: 3-11. In Sethian treatises it is often Eve who is the instructor of Adam, e.g. Apocryphon of John II, 1, 23, 4-9; Hypostasis of the Archons II, 4, 89, 11-15; On the Origin of the World II, 5, 115, 30-116, 8. 43 Thus Tardieu, op. cit. 2008: 39. 44 E.g. (ascribed to Mani himself) Theodor bar Khoni, Lib. Schol. XI, CSCO 69 pp. 317, 14-318, 4; and also in the Fihrist. 45 See the synoptic edition by M. Waldstein, F. Wisse, The Apocryphon of John, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1995: 134-135.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 329329 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 330 MANI’S BOOK OF MYSTERIES
it would be most interesting to know what source Mani was using; perhaps something like the (Nag Hammadi) Apocalypse of Adam.46
11. The fall from religion:
If I am correct in my interpretation of the previous chapters, then perhaps ch. 11 corresponds to Adam’s subsequent fall despite the prior instruction of Jesus. For instance, in Mani’s account as quoted by al-Nadim in the Fihrist, Eve now casts a spell on Adam who mates with her to produce Sethel. Certainly, although Jesus’ revelation to Adam is the prototype of human salvation, one can well understand how Mani might now turn to the issue of ‘the fall from religion’ that characterises the enduring human condition mired in lust and ignorance.
12. The discourse of the Daysaniyya on the soul and the body:
Chapters 12 and 13 return to discussion of the teaching of Bardaisan and his followers. Whilst one is tempted to speculate that this part of the work might be displaced (i.e. have better followed ch. 1), perhaps there was a conceptual link to the previous material. After all, the story of Adam and Eve leads directly to the generation of the human race, and this would then raise the issue of rebirth or transmigration (the preferred term is metaggismos).
13. Refutation of the Daysaniyya on the living soul:
Al-Biruni provides the only surviving actual quotation specifically ascribed to the Book of Mysteries: ‘Since the apostles knew that the souls are immortal, and that in their migrations they array themselves in every form, that they are shaped in every animal, and are cast in the mould of every figure; they asked Messiah what would be the end of those souls which did not receive the truth
46 Thus Adam’s ‘testimony’ of the experience of awakening: ‘.. saying to me, “Arise, Adam, from the sleep of death ..”’ (NHC V, 5, 66, 1-3). Of course, here Adam is addressed by three heavenly beings rather than Jesus; but one might still compare Mani as quoted by Theodor bar Khoni (Lib. Schol. XI, p. 317, tr. in Gardner, Lieu, op. cit. 2004: 17): ‘Thus was Adam also, when the beloved (n.b., see our ch. 2) found him in a profound sleep ..’ (etc.). Note also that in the Apocalypse of Adam the creator god subsequently mates with Eve (66, 25-28), as indeed does the male archon in Mani’s account as recorded by al-Nadim in the Fihrist. In both texts Adam then again lusts for Eve. Interestingly, in the Fihrist there follows soon after an obscure reference to three divine beings, one of whom comes to Adam with a crown of glory; it would seem pos- sible to see this as another point of contact between the texts. Finally, it may be remarked that the Apocalypse of Adam also evidences a tradition about the ‘real’ meaning of the crucifixion (thus our ch. 4), where the archons only punish one of their own (77, 14-18): ‘.. nor will (the powers) see the illuminator either. Then they will punish the flesh of the man upon whom the holy spirit has come’.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 330330 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 I. GARDNER 331
nor learn the origin of their existence. Whereupon he said, “Any weak soul which has not received all that belongs to her of truth perishes without any rest or bliss”’.47 It is not clear where this quotation should be placed in our work, since al-Biruni continues that ‘in another place’ Mani says: ‘The partisans of Bardesanes think that the living soul rises and is purified in the carcase, not knowing that the latter is the enemy of the soul, …’ (etc.).48 Presumably the second quotation is from ch. 13, while the former may possibly belong to the previous (but perhaps elsewhere).
14. The three trenches:49
In the final chapters Mani clearly turns to matters of the workings of the cosmos and eschatology. The three ‘trenches’ or ‘pits’ are described in the Kephalaia, where it is explained that they have been prepared by the Living Spirit to hold waste matter discharged by the processes of the cosmic machinery. It can therefore be safely confined until the final dissolution of the universe.50
15. The preservation of the world:
Presumably, this chapter was again concerned with the work of the Living Spirit and the other gods of the second emanation; they were charged with the maintenance and proper functioning of the cosmos, as a prison for the forces of darkness and a machine for the distillation of the light-soul from its mixture with matter.
47 Following E.C. Sachau, ed., Alberuni’s India, I, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., London, 1910: 54-55. Al-Biruni gives other quotations from Mani in his work, though they are not explicitly ascribed to the Book of Mysteries. There are two of particular importance. Firstly, (ibid. p. 48): ‘The apostles asked Jesus about the life of inanimate nature, whereupon he said, “If that which is inanimate is separated from the living element which is commingled with it, and appears alone by itself, it is again inanimate and is not capable of living; whilst the living ele- ment which has left it, retaining its vital energy unimpaired, never dies”’. Here again there is quoted a logion of Jesus; and, as the theme is very much that of chs. 12-13, it seems probable that it belongs to the work. Indeed, F. de Blois (in de Blois, Sims-Williams op. cit. 2006: 53a) supposes that this quotation directly preceded the one (supra) that al-Biruni explicitly ascribes to the Book of Mysteries. Secondly, (Sachau ibid. p. 169): ‘The other religious bodies blame us because we worship sun and moon, and represent them as an image. But they do not know their real natures; they do not know that the sun and moon are our path, the door whence we march forth into the world of our existence (into heaven), as this has been declared by Jesus’. Given the eschatological theme, and the context of communal dispute, I am again inclined to suppose that this was found in the Book of Mysteries. However, for a somewhat similar quotation elsewhere ascribed to Jesus by Mani, probably from one of his Epistles, see P. Kell. Copt. 54, ll. 1-6 in I. Gardner, Kellis Literary Texts II, Oxbow Press, Oxford, 2007: 87 (and 91). 48 Al-Biruni, ibid. p. 55. On this see further H.J.W. Drijvers, Bardaisan of Edessa, Van Gorcum, Assen, 1966: 204-205. 49 See further de Blois, Sims-Williams, op. cit. 2006: 44a. 50 Keph1. XLIII, XLV.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 331331 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 332 MANI’S BOOK OF MYSTERIES
16. The three days: The three-fold classification of time is a well-known characteristic of Man- ichaeism; and certainly goes back to Mani himself, as it is also found in the Fundamental Epistle (as well as here in the Book of Mysteries). The focus is often eschatological: We live now in the middle time (of mixture), can look back to the beginning to know who we are; but our hope will be in the end, ‘the great third day when the Father will reveal his image’.51
17. The prophets: The ninth-century CE historian al-Ya‘qubi commented that in the Book of Mysteries Mani ‘discredits the signs of the prophets’.52 Perhaps, in keeping with the eschatological theme, this chapter discussed the ‘signs of the end’ pro- claimed by various prophets (i.e. rather than signs as ‘miracles’); and rejected those figures and traditions that Mani did not accept. Primarily one thinks of prophets from the biblical tradition who were not included in the chain of true apostles that culminated with Mani himself;53 but there may well have been discussion of a wide range of pseudepigrapha.
18. The resurrection: The Arabic chapter heading (al-qiyama) does not reflect Manichaean teach- ing about the final goal, i.e. the ascent of the light-soul and its ultimate return to the Father. Consequently, it should be regarded as a Muslim gloss; but the content of this chapter (‘the last things’) as the culmination of the Book of Mysteries is surely clear enough.
––––
51 Thus Keph1. 103: 10-11; see generally XVII and XXXIX and the introductory comments to each kephalaion in I. Gardner, The Kephalaia of the Teacher, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1995: 59, 106. The parallel development in the Middle Persian tradition is known through the text M5750; English translation in Klimkeit, op. cit. 1993: 253-254. 52 The passage is cited by J.C. Reeves, op. cit. 1992: 17. An apparently similar comment is made in the Greek textual tradition of formulae for the renunciation of Manichaeism, viz. ‘.. I anathematize .. the (Book) of Mysteries, which is intended by them for the overturning of the law and of the holy prophets’. Thus the ‘short formula’; and compare the ‘long formula’. But the ‘seven chapters’ associates this rather with works ‘by Adda and Adeimantos’ (which would make particularly good sense), suggesting that there may have been corruption in the tradition. See the texts and study by S.N.C. Lieu, ‘An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism’, in his Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1994: 203-305 (quoted at 236-237, 299). 53 Extant Manichaean texts show surprisingly little evidence of the sort of polemic one might expect; but see e.g. the comment of Augustine, de Haer. XLVI, 15: ‘They assert that the god who gave the law through Moses, and who spoke in the Hebrew prophets, is not the true God; but one of the princes of darkness’; similarly Acta Archelai XI-XII (quoted in Gardner, Lieu, op. cit. 2004: 186).
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 332332 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 I. GARDNER 333
Most scholars have thought that Mani’s Book of Mysteries must have been a rather ragged collection of bits and pieces, and indeed this is the impression given by a first reading of the chapter headings as listed by al-Nadim. But I do not believe this to have been the case. I think that the book contained a coherent set of teachings arranged according to a clear purpose and rationale, and that this can be reconstructed with a fair degree of certainty. Our careful examination can lead to some important conclusions and suggest further lines of research. Of course, there is the famous story recounted by al-Biruni of how his interest in the text was aroused by arguments made against the books of Mani, and espe- cially the Book of Mysteries, by al-Razi in his work On Divine Knowledge.54 He tells how, after forty years of searching, he finally obtained a volume of Manichaean writings (it seems to have been a collection of Mani’s canon in Arabic), including his particular goal, this very work. But it was a grave disap- pointment to him. However, the modern scholar is likely to be interested in rather different things to al-Biruni. We can learn much about the following: What were the sources used by Mani and available to him in his lifetime? How did he utilise this textual material? How did Mani present his teachings, and which elements of Manichaean doctrine can be traced back to him?
My analysis of the Book of Mysteries leads to the following conclusions. Not all details are certain, but I hope that the general principles and overview will gain acceptance. When the chapters given by al-Nadim55 name a ‘testimony’ it means that Mani uses a written source to justify his teachings, probably in a similar way to the use of the quotations from various apocalypses in the Cologne Mani-Codex. The modern scholar would characterise these as pseudepigraphic works, but of course for Mani and his audience they had a very different status. Probably the first ‘testimony’ was a version of the Oracles of Hystaspes, for the remainder I have made some suggestions. Furthermore, two of the chapters refer rather to a ‘discourse’. I imagine that these were also written sources, but not of the same authority as a ‘testimony’. Conversely, when the chapter head- ing uses neither of these terms, (but reads simply e.g. ‘The son of the widow’, ‘The seven spirits’), it probably indicates exegesis by Mani developed from something in the previous chapter.
54 Al-Biruni recounts the story in his preface to an index of al-Razi’s writings; but unfortu- nately the treatise On Divine Knowledge has not survived. See the references and the passage as quoted by J.C. Reeves, op. cit. 1992: 18-19 + nn. 68-70. 55 Of course, as we have no other account, we can not be certain as to what was the status of al-Nadim’s ‘chapters’; i.e. whether they were an intrinsic part of the work devised by Mani him- self. One also wonders whether some sections may have dropped out of the manuscript tradition.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 333333 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20 334 MANI’S BOOK OF MYSTERIES
If we turn now to an overview of the text as I understand it, it seems prob- able that Mani began with an account of the Bardesanites because their founder had written his own Book of Mysteries. This then becomes a kind of preface to the work and its purpose. Chapters 2-5 are all about Jesus, three pseudepi- graphic testimonies and one extended exegesis about the true meaning of the crucifixion. The contents of chapter 6 become a crucial issue. Possibly, they continue what has come before (i.e. somehow about Jesus); but I am more inclined (taking a hint from the title reading: ‘The commencement of the tes- timony ..’) to think that here Mani starts to recount his narrative that runs right to the final chapter. This narrative is the familiar theme of the history of the living-soul, beginning with the victory of the ‘first right hand’ (probably the Living Spirit) over the powers of darkness and the consequent construction of the multi-layered cosmos as an arena for salvation. In this case, how chapter 6 is linked to the previous is something one would like to know; but much depends on who is the Judas and what is the text in chapter 5 (I rather doubt that it was the Gospel of Thomas). Chapters 7 and 8 are then probably to do with astrology, a natural connection to the Living Spirit’s construction of the universe and its workings. In chap- ters 9-11 we have Jesus’ descent through the heavens to Adam, the latter’s awak- ening to knowledge and subsequent fall into lust. In chapters 12 and 13 Mani discusses the relationship of the soul to the body, sidetracking into a refutation of Bardesanite views. This leads him to his goal in 14-18 of discussing our future hope: the proper ordering of and care for the world by the powers of light (14-15), the final dawning of the third day (16) and glorious return to the Father (18), (during which Mani is led to reject false opinions in ch. 17). Finally, it should be remarked that Jesus is central to the work, and this point should be emphasised for our understanding of Mani’s teaching. Not only does he start by discussing Jesus and the real meaning of the crucifixion at some length (chapters 2-5), and then focusses on his salvific mission to Adam; but the valuable quotations from the Book of Mysteries preserved by al-Biruni show how Mani based his teachings in logia of the saviour. Of course, Mani’s under- standing of Jesus and the traditions on which it was founded included much ‘non-canonical’ material to fascinate the modern scholar. There are hints here of access to Sethian texts, which should be the subject of further study. There are suggestions of the same influence in Mandaean literature.56
56 However, it should be remarked that my analysis of Mani’s Book of Mysteries, with its focus on Jesus and its narrative drive, appears less likely to be replicated in the Mandaean Diwan d-Razia. The little I know of this text would indicate an esoteric priestly scroll of a rather different character.
993793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_15_Gardner.indd 334334 118/10/118/10/11 15:2015:20