UTRIA in the COPTIC MANICHAICA the Context for the Research Summarised in This Paper Is a Much Broa

ARAM, 22 (2010) 87-96. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.22.0.2131033

SEARCHING FOR TRACES OF THE {UTRIA IN THE COPTIC MANICHAICA

Prof. IAIN GARDNER (University of Sydney)

The context for the research summarised in this paper is a much broader project on the religio-historical and textual connections between Mandaeism and Manichaeism. I do not intend to discuss all the ramifications of that here; but, rather, to narrow the focus to a specific set of questions applied to a particular source of data, the Coptic Manichaica. By this source I mean the texts found in the codices of the so-called Medinet Madi library, these texts being Coptic trans- lations drawn ultimately from Syriac / Aramaic originals, written either by Mani himself or derived from the first generations of the Manichaean community. These texts form a coherent, if not entirely uniform, source of data that evidences very early Manichaean tradition in its homeland. The point of all this being that this source, i.e. the ‘Coptic Manichaica’, provides a reasonably closed set of textual material by which to test any hypothesis of Mandaean-Manichaean interconnection in Mesopotamia during the second half of the third century1. The questions that I have here applied to this source are specifically these: – Does this Manichaean material evidence a class of divine beings analogous to the {utria of Mandaeism? – If this is so, are there any traces of the Mandaean saviour figures, (a sub- category of the {utria), in this Manichaean material? This paper will be entirely taken up with these questions. It is deliberately restricted in its purpose and elaborates no grand theory, though I expect that some of the relevance for broader issues will be apparent enough. I should stress that this paper is not a study of the {utria in Mandaeism. It is, precisely as the title says, concerned with ‘searching for (their) traces in the Coptic Manichaica’. There is in the Mandaean texts (and, of course, in religious practice) a class of divine beings called {utria or uthras2. These ‘rich ones’ are called into existence

1 Whilst I have tried to phrase this opening paragraph carefully, one remains aware of various possible qualifications. In particular, the Medinet Madi codices evidence various strata of textual development, and what I have stated above is perhaps not uniformly true of all the material. One needs also add to this source both related material (such as Kellis texts) and other that is equally early found such as within the Mani-Codex, an-Nadim’s Fihrist, the Parthian hymns, etc. 2 E.S. Drower, R. Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary, Oxford: 1963, p. 347ab.

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 8787 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12 88 SEARCHING FOR TRACES OF THE {UTRIA IN THE COPTIC MANICHAICA

and are secondary to the First Life or King of Light. The term is very widely used. It includes the saviour figures, with which this paper will be primarily concerned; that is, the three ‘brothers’ Hibil Ziwa, Sitil, and Anus {Utra, together with the pre-eminent Manda d-Hiia. It also applies to more ambivalent figures, including the creator Ptahil {Utra; and to those beings who are imprisoned in the toll-houses between the World of Light and earth. Then again, the term may be used in liturgical and priestly contexts. It should also be noted that there are other titles or epithets used in the texts, such as malkia (kings) and malakia (angels / devils, usually negative). In general, it may be supposed that all the {utria share the characteristic of being intermediaries between the eter- nality of the World of Light, from which they derive or in which nature they partake, and our own mortal existence, from where we perceive them3. Whilst one would wish to be more specific about the various classes of divine beings and their particular characteristics, there is such an accumulation of strata of tradition within the available texts that this is impossible within the confines of a paper such as this4. In any case, this paper is not concerned with the holy grail of establishing such a stratigraphy of Mandaean teachings. The question is restricted: Does the Manichaean material evidence a class of divine beings analogous to the {utria of Mandaeism? Now, it is already apparent that the functions of the {utria are varied and not particularly distinctive, indeed generalised enough to be common to a number of religious systems. But the term itself is notable; though obviously derived from the word for ‘wealth’, this usage is specific to Mandaic amongst Aramaic dialects5. In fact, the term and usage has a direct parallel in the Coptic of the Medinet Madi codices: rmmao, that is, ‘rich one’6. This point is well enough known7. E.S. Drower, in her personal copy of the Manichaean Psalm-Book, hand wrote {utria beside the initial occurrence of the Coptic word in the first Thom Psalm8;

3 J.J. Buckley, The Mandaeans, Oxford 2002: 8: “In varying ways, (the {utras) continue to uphold and look after the Lightworld and earth, and especially to keep contact with the Mandae- ans of earth. Laufa (connection) .. expresses this contact between the worlds”. 4 See the classic paper by M. Lidzbarski, {Uthra und Malakha’, Orientalische Studien Th. Nöldeke zum siebzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. C. Bezold, Gieszen 1906: 537-545. More recently, there is detailed discussion in D. Shapira, {Anus and {U/ra Revised: Notes on Aramaic- Iranian Linguistic Interaction and Mystical Traditions’, Kabbalah, 6, 2000: 151-182 (especially n. 5). 5 Though see the discussion of Samaritan usage (‘angelic armies’) by D. Shapira, op. cit., pp. 155-156. 6 rMmao, lit’ ‘great man’; also note mNtrMmao, ‘richness’ or ‘wealth’. 7 E.g. D. Shapira, op. cit., pp. 153-154 (though I do not agree with certain details of his discussion, especially that the rMmaaï belong to the second evocation). 8 A Manichaean Psalm-Book II, ed. C.R.C. Allberry, Stuttgart: 1938, p. 203, 12 (E.S. Drower’s copy is in my own possession).

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 8888 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12 I. GARDNER 89

and indeed P. Nagel in his German translation of the same texts even used the Mandaean term to represent the Coptic9. These instances relate to this particular group of psalms, where parallels to the Mandaean literature were famously made evident by T. Säve-Söderbergh in 194910. But the term and this usage (i.e. the rich ones as a class of divine beings) is found more broadly in the Coptic Manichaica; and, it should be stressed, has no proper antecedent in earlier so-called gnostic literature in Coptic11. The link goes directly from the Mandaean to the Coptic Manichaica. For instance, the Kephalaia represents the rapidly developing scholastic tradition of the community, and kephalaion fifty is entitled, ‘Concerning these names: God, Rich One, and Angel; who they are’12. The primary classification is that gods are summoned by the Father from himself; rich ones are then evoked by the ‘first rich gods’; and angels in turn from the rich ones. Thus, in this classification the rich ones belong to a level of emanation below that of the gods, a distinction that does not correspond to Mandaean usage where it appears that all divine beings secondary to the First Life may on occasion be termed {utria13. However, the study of other Manichaean texts will easily demonstrate that the taxonomy applied here is very much a product of the scholastic tradition, and its imperative to impose an ordering system14. Indeed, despite this drive for consistency in terminological usage, it is clear that even in the Kephalaia the great gods, those evoked first from the Father, may them- selves also be termed rich: The twelve hours of this (first) great day are the twelve great rich gods (p]mNtsnaus Nnaö Nrmmao Nnoute) of greatness. These, who are the first evocations ..15

9 P. Nagel, Die Thomaspsalmen des koptisch-manichäischen Psalmenbuches, Berlin: 1980; cf. p. 29 n. 7a. 10 T. Säve-Söderbergh, Studies in the Coptic Manichaean Psalm-Book. Prosody and Man- daean Parallels, Uppsala 1949. 11 Thus, Nag Hammadi and related texts. Of course, the language of ‘richness’ has general utility and belongs to the common store of imagery. Thus it is possible to find some similar seeming instances, e.g. in The Apocryphon of John the pronoia declares ‘I am the richness of the light’ (NHL II, 1, 30, 15). 12 Kephalaia, ed. H.-J. Polotsky, A. Böhlig, Stuttgart: 1940, pp. 125, 25 – 126, 29. 13 Note, however, E.S. Drower’s definition of the {utria in The Secret Adam, Oxford: 1960, p. 56, “They are not First Emanations, but they were created by them, although this is often apparently contradicted by what is said of them in the texts”. 14 An examination of usage throughout the kephalaic tradition seems to evidence the attempt to apply this classification (e.g. 24, 4.15.20; 66, 9), but inconsistencies remain. Especially interesting is 63, 32 where is found rich gods, angels and dwellings (maNjwpe, i.e. skinata?); compare PsBk2 203, 11-15, richnesses, angels, dwellings (tamie⁄on). Cf. perhaps (e.g.) hymn 374 in The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans, ed. E.S. Drower, Leiden: 1959, (of Yawar- Ziwa): ‘.. king of {uthras, great viceregent of skinata’. 15 Keph. 25, 15-17; similarly e.g. 126, 4-5 (see above).

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 8989 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12 90 SEARCHING FOR TRACES OF THE {UTRIA IN THE COPTIC MANICHAICA

We should now compare the Manichaean Psalm-Book16 which, obviously, is a liturgical text without the same scholastic imperatives. It also is a work that was assembled from diverse sources and authors. It is in the Thom Psalms that the term ‘rich ones’ come closest to Mandaean usage as a generalised category for all the divine beings17. In contrast, the ‘son of evil … has no richness in his treasure’18. Elsewhere, reading the bema-psalms, we find that the Third Ambas- sador, certainly one of the great gods of the system and principal amongst the saviour divinities, is termed ‘the rich one’19. But it is perhaps the absence of the term in some categories of texts that is more interesting. The comprehensive listing of deities and suchlike in one of the psalms of the wanderers20, although admittedly fragmentary, repeatedly lists together only ‘gods and angels’21. In sum, it is certain that the Thom Psalms evidence a category of divine beings, rmmao / rmmaai i.e.‘rich ones’, directly parallel to the Mandaean {utria. This is also known in other early sources represented by the Coptic Manichaica, and the Kephalaia makes a systematic attempt to integrate them with the gods and the angels, trying to impose an artificial taxonomy for terminological usage. How- ever, outside of the Thom Psalms the references to the rich ones in this technical sense are somewhat occasional, raising interesting questions about the level of interaction between the Manichaean and Mandaean traditions. This problem will now be pursued by a specific search for traces of the saviour {utria in our Coptic corpus, taking in turn Hibil Ziwa, Sitil, Anus {Utra22, and then Manda d-Hiia.

16 Amongst the published Medinet Madi texts (other than PsBk2 and Keph) there is also one fragmentary passage of note in the Manichäische Homilien, ed. H.-J. Polotsky, Stuttgart: 1934, p. 43, 11-14. 17 Thus PsBk2 207, 14; 210, 14; also see e.g. 203, 12; 204, 25. 18 PsBk2 203, 29-32. 19 PsBk2 36, 28 (here the Ambassador is named simply as ‘the third father’). It is worth not- ing that in kephalaion 50, in a third application of the archetypes, the gods belong to the household of the Great Spirit, the angels to that of the Beloved of Lights, and the rich ones to that of the Ambassador. What is interesting about this is that the sequence (god, rich one, angel) has had to be altered so that the rMmaaï can be assigned to the principal figure of the third evocation, i.e. that of salvation. 20 PsBk2 136, 13-140, 52. 21 E.g. PsBk2 137, 4; 138, 33 (though note that at 137, 18 the First Man is called ‘the lord of richness’). Compare the ‘Prayer of the Emanations’ (P. Kell. Gr. 98, 77-78): ‘I worship and glorify all gods, all angels’. However, amongst the Greek Manichaica one should note the psalm P. Kell. Gr. 92, 8 (and perhaps 18): “I praise you, greatly praised Father, the foundation of all the lights and the measure of all virtuous riches (ploÕtov)”. 22 Obviously these three names are derived from the figures of Abel, Seth and Enosh (see Genesis 4). I have no intention of engaging here with the contentious issue of how these figures entered Mandaean tradition; nor is it my purpose to comment on broader issues of extra-biblical and especially so-called gnostic developments, in particular about Seth. For a start, see e.g. A.F.J. Klijn, Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature, Leiden: 1977; G. G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology, Leiden: 1984; and more recent summaries of the ‘Sethian’ thesis in K. L. King, What is Gnosticism?, Cambridge, Mass.: 2003, pp. 156ff, Dictionary of Gnosis and western Esotericism, ed. W.J. Hanegraaff, Leiden: 2006 (W.A. Löhr: ‘Sethians’ [with bibliography]), pp. 1063b-1069a). For detail, with particular reference to the traditions cited in the Cologne Mani-Codex, see J. C. Reeves, Heralds of that Good Realm, Leiden 1996.

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 9090 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12 I. GARDNER 91

“In the name of …” or “Praised be Hibil, Sitil and Anus” are recurring formulae in Mandaean texts and religious life. There is no comparable collec- tive invocation of the celestial Adamites in Manichaean literature. However, if we look at each of these figures in turn we will find a series of important connections between the traditions that require explanation. Firstly. Hibil Ziwa, that is Abel Splendour or Radiance, is the focus for a series of important Mandaean narratives, both in the classical literature and in popular story-telling. These relate primarily to his descent into the abys- mal world of darkness, where he confronts the ‘mountain of flesh’, Krun23. Now, the name Hibil (nor any other recognisable form of the name Abel) does not appear in such a context, i.e. the descent into the abyss, in the Man- ichaean tradition24. However, the epithet ziwa (Copt. pRïe) has two important usages of relevance: as the defining name of the saviour god Jesus Splendour, and also of the five light elements that descend as the sons of the Primal Man. Jesus and the Man (who is the ‘first-born’, ‘only-begotten’ son of God25) share many characteristics and are often conflated in the texts26. Together they cover most of the functions associated with Hibil-Ziwa in Mandaeism. Jesus Splendour (Yiso Ziwa, iYs ppRïe, or féggov)27 is one of the major gods of the third emanation, those of salvation. He is the ‘son of the greatness’28 and ‘father of all the apostles’29. Indeed, although essentially a doublet of the Third Ambassador / Maiden of Light, as a more personal rather than abstract figure it is Jesus who is the foremost recipient of devotion. He is particularly associated with the awakening and raising of Adam30, the archetype

23 See e.g. the summary in E. Lupieri, The Mandaeans, tr. C. Hindley, Grand Rapids: 2002, pp. 47-48; and ‘How Hibil Ziwa fetched Ruha from the Darkness’ in E.S. Drower, The Mandae- ans of Iraq and Iran, repr. Piscataway: 2002, pp. 269-273. 24 The Manichaeans did preserve and indeed develop extended narratives about the earthly Adamites, including Abel; see especially the account in the ninth chapter of the Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadim, (tr. B. Dodge, New York: 1970, II, pp. 783-786), on which see J.C. Reeves, ‘Manichaica Aramaica: Adam and the Magical Deliverance of Seth’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 119, 1999: 432-439. 25 E.g. see the references in the index to The Kephalaia of the Teacher, ed. I. Gardner, Lei- den: 1995, p. 296. Of course, Hibil-Ziwa is also the ‘first-born’ son of the Life; e.g. K. Rudolph, Theogonie, Kosmogonie und Anthropogonie in den mandäischen Schriften, Göttingen: 1965, pp. 231-239. 26 Particularly as Ohrmizd in the Iranian Manichaean literature; e.g. see the references in M. Franzmann, Jesus in the Manichaean Writings, London: 2003, pp. 35 n. 39, 135. 27 See in particular E. Rose, Die Manichäische Christologie, Wiesbaden: 1979, pp. 66-88; M. Franzmann, op. cit., pp. 27-49. The Syriac term is retained as a loan in the Parthian texts. 28 E.g. Keph. 36, 31. 29 E.g. Keph. 20, 24; 80, 19. 30 See especially Mani himself as quoted by Theodor bar Khoni (and preserving Syriac terminology), Lib. Schol. xi, CSCO 69, pp. 317, 14 – 318, 4. This episode is variously re-told in the Mandaean texts, e.g. see the extracts in Lupieri op. cit. 187-198. The identity of the saving {utra for Adam is sometimes undetermined and certainly variable, but perhaps most closely associated with Manda d-Hiia.

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 9191 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12 92 SEARCHING FOR TRACES OF THE {UTRIA IN THE COPTIC MANICHAICA

of human redemption; and thus with the Light Mind31. There are also further cosmological roles involving descent into matter, subduing the rebellious pow- ers, and strengthening the ‘fastenings’ of the cosmic structure32. In terminology and function there are thus important overlaps with Hibil Ziwa and the other saviour {utria. The term ziwa / ziwane is also used of the five light elements. These are personified as the five sons of the Primal Man33, with whom they descend into the abyss to be devoured by the darkness and thus enter into mixture. There are a number of narrative episodes to this crucial part of the Manichaean history, some interesting variations and a wealth of symbolic language. And, of course, it clearly corresponds to the episode in Mandaean tradition most closely associated with Hibil Ziwa. In Manichaeism the ziwane are garments swathed around the Primal Man; or he is described equipped with them as armour, with which he then descends like a mighty champion to battle34. Equally he is a youthful prince, sorrowfully leav- ing his household to embark on the treacherous journey into the depths of dark- ness35. Much of this can be paralleled for Hibil-Ziwa, though the teaching about the five light elements and sacrifice of the living soul introduces matters specific to Manichaean theology36. Equally, episodes such as the extended exchanges between Hibil and Ruha are developed uniquely in Mandaeism37. The two traditions come together in the Thom Psalms, where sections of text are paralleled in Mandaean writings. This evidences a common history, as was demonstrated convincingly by T. Säve-Söderbergh, although I do not accept the hypothesis he followed to try and explain the cause. For a start, I regard it as most unlikely that the psalms were authored or have anything to do with a supposed disciple of Mani’s named Thomas38, nor even with the apostle Thomas39.

31 Thus the Mind is also termed ‘father of all the apostles …. The one whom Jesus has appointed’, Keph. 35, 21-24. 32 On these see particularly Keph. 59, 18-28; 61, 17-28; 94, 1-11. Kephalaion 8 provides a structured account of the stations of Jesus’ descent into matter. 33 The five ziwane are the living air, wind, light, water and fire. The Coptic equivalent to ziwa is found in the expressions pèou Nnoute etpRïwu (e.g. Keph. 69, 28) and pèou NrMmpRïe (e.g. Keph. 85, 34-35). 34 E.g. Theodor bar Khoni, ibid., 313, 27 – 314, 12; Keph. 38, 8 – 39, 12; Augustine, c. Faust., II.3-4. 35 Of course, the most famous and powerful account of the young prince is that of ‘The Hymn of the Pearl’ (embedded in the Acts of Thomas 108-113); though the exact relationship both to Manichaeism and to this specific episode is a matter of much speculation. 36 Though see e.g. K. Rudolph, op. cit., pp. 207-208. 37 Thus Right Ginza 5, 1; see J.J. Buckley, op. cit. pp. 40-42 + ff. For great detail, see K. Rudolph, op. cit. pp. 213-247. 38 See Säve-Söderbergh op. cit. pp. 156, 163ff. This suggestion dates back to Allberry’s ed. princ. pp. XXII, 203 n. 1. pp. 397-416. 39 See further the discussions by F.F. Church and G.G. Stroumsa, ‘Mani’s Disciple Thomas and the Psalms of Thomas’, Vigiliae Christianae, 34, 1980: 47-55; J. Tubach, ‘Die Thomas-Psalmen

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 9292 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12 I. GARDNER 93

The title reads ‘Psalms Nqwm’, and it is preferable to understand this directly as the ‘Tawm psalms’, meaning the twin spirit who was the source of Mani’s revelation; i.e. rather than any Thomas (obviously the etymology is common). Of course, this raises a number of very important issues that can not be dealt with here. But, for the moment, the point is simply (and this should be gener- ally agreed) that many of the technical terms in the Thom Psalms can be derived back from their Coptic expression to Mandaean (or proto-Mandaean) origins. Rmmao is {utra, tamion can be skinta. Furthermore, as regards our purposes, in these psalms the descent of Hibil Ziwa and that of the Primal Man become one and the same, for here the Man is primarily the ‘youth’ or the ‘little one’40, the one who ‘makes music in the scent of the life that is upon him’41. Youth is, of course, a primary epithet of Hibil: Sweet is your voice, youth Hibil, When you speak in the garden of Adam And chant sublime hymns. Sweet is your voice, and its sound went thither42.

If we turn now to Sitil, the first obvious point is that our two traditions share this distinctive variant on the name for Seth, i.e. Manichaean Sethel; with various suggestions made for the etymology43. Whatever the correct solution to that question, for the purposes here it is the link between these traditions and their distinctiveness from other literatures that is crucial. In Manichaeism, Sethel appears as the ‘first-born son of Adam’44; and, together with Enosh, is named in the lists of true apostles45. The emphasis on Sethel ‘his son’46

und der Mani-Jünger Thomas’, New Perspectives in Manichaean Research, ed. A. van Tongerloo, L. Cirillo, Louvain: 2005, pp. 397-416. 40 I.e plilou (explicitly in Thom Psalm IV), also pkouï and petsabK. See further M. Franzmann, op. cit., pp. 119-124; especially p. 124 where she summarises the argument of S. Richter that ‘Jesus the Youth’ is secondary to the Youth in the Psalms of Thom(as). 41 PsBk2 p. 211, 16-17; also Thom Psalm XVII, where he mocks the world and dialogues with Matter (compare Hibil and Ruha). 42 Prayerbook 204 (pp. 173f. adapted), parallel in Explanatory Commentary on the Marriage- Ceremony of the Great Sislam, ed. E.S. Drower, Roma: 1950, p. 53. See also e.g. Right Ginza, 10. 43 See the discussion by J.C. Reeves, op. cit. pp. 112-114; also K. Rudolph, op. cit. 304 n. 4. Summaries of the two traditions can be found in B.A. Pearson, ‘The Figure of Seth in Man- ichaean Literature’, Manichaean Studies. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manichaeism, August 5-9, 1987, ed. P. Bryder, Lund: 1988, pp. 147-155; and J.J. Buckley, op. cit. pp. 35-39 (chapter 3, “Sitil: An Example of ‘the Image Above and Below’”), 44 Thus Keph. 12, 10-11; 42, 29. 45 E.g. see the discussion and references collected in J.C. Reeves, op. cit., pp. 7-17 (nn. pp. 21- 30); also H.-Ch. Puech, Le Manichéisme. Son Fondateur. Sa Doctrine, Paris:1949, p. 61 and n. 241, W. Sundermann, ‘Manichaean Traditions on the Date of the Historical Buddha’, in Man- ichaica Iranica. Ausgewählte Schriften von Werner Sundermann, ed. Ch. Reck et al, Roma: 2001, I, p. 442. 46 Keph. 145, 27. See J.C. Reeves, op. cit., p. 130 n. 2 for references in Mandaean literature to Sitil, son of Adam.

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 9393 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12 94 SEARCHING FOR TRACES OF THE {UTRIA IN THE COPTIC MANICHAICA

presupposes the archontic birth of Cain and Abel, who are thus written out of the narrative of the light; as indeed is the case in Mandaeism47. Furthermore, in the Coptic Manichaica there are clear traces of Sethel as a saviour figure. Amongst the psalms of the wanderers there is one explicitly addressed: ‘Let us sing together to Sethel our saviour’48. This is very strange, Sethel is even termed ‘my god’. The major part of the psalm consists of a series of strophes in which the deities, ending with the paraclete Manichaios himself, his church and his writings, all in turn bless and glorify Sethel. This serves to emphasise core Manichaean theology, and indeed cosmology. How- ever, then the final strophes are quite different in style, content and even metre49; and it is perhaps no surprise that here is a passage where T. Säve-Söderbergh noted a clear echo in Mandaean literature, in this instance from the Left Ginza (although there apparently addressed to the soul rather than to Sethel)50. It seems reasonable to suggest a redaction history for the psalm where there has been the conscious addition of Manichaean doctrinal features. Kephalaion 10 makes explicit Manichaean interaction with prior traditions. The disciples ask the apostle to explain a text written in ‘the prayer of Sethel’: ‘You are glorious, you fourteen great aeons of light’51. Mani’s exegesis is entirely in terms of his own theology, at least as it is presented in this scholastic tradition; and one doubts that it has anything to do with the original context for the fourteen aeons. Unfortunately, one can not know what this was52; nor anything about the form of ‘the prayer of Sethel’, although works with similar names are known53.

47 See J.J. Buckley, op. cit. 176 n. 16: ‘As far as I know, Mandaeism has no mention of the Cain and Abel story (although the name Hibil may be a faint reflection of Abel)’. In contrast, Manichaean literature did develop traditions about the earthly Adamites (see references supra); but these have a different context to our discussions here. 48 PsBk2 144, 1 – 146, 13. On this psalm see T. Säve-Söderbergh, op. cit., pp. 81-83. Elsewhere in the Manichaean Psalm-Book (179, 22-24) Sethel is characterised as parqénov in contrast to Adam (êgkratßv) and Eve (∂ggamov). And then there is also a fragmentary reference to a tradition about ‘(three hundred and?) seventy-three years’ (142, 5, cf. Homs. 68, 15). One might tentatively recall the famous story in the Left Ginza (see the summary by J.J. Buckley, op. cit. p. 36) where Sitil is substituted for Adam, although only eighty years old and never hav- ing slept with a woman. Furthermore, the account of Sitil’s ascent in that text has interesting similarities to the extract from an ‘apocalypse of Sethel’ quoted in the Cologne Mani-Codex (50, 8 – 52, 7); noted also by J.C. Reeves, op. cit., pp. 122-124. 49 PsBk2 145, 21 – 146, 8 (followed by the doxology, to which the name of Sethel is, oddly, appended again). Unfortunately, the lines at the top of p. 146 are poorly preserved; but the changes are certainly apparent on the previous page. 50 Left Ginza 108, 5-9, quoted p. 83. 51 Keph. 42, 30-31; (kephalaion 10 is 42, 24 – 43, 21). 52 J.C. Reeves, op. cit. p. 53 n. 39 notes the Naassene version of Ev. Thom. logion 4 as quoted by Hippolytus, and also refers to G.G. Stroumsa (op. cit. p. 94 n. 51) for further discussion; but I am doubtful whether this is relevant. 53 See W. Brashear’s publication of a ‘Seth-Gebet’ (j euxj sjt), i.e. P. Berol. 17207, 4th- 5th century CE, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, 42/1, pp. 26-34; equally The Three Steles of Seth (NHL VII, 5), etc.

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 9494 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12 I. GARDNER 95

The Cologne Mani-Codex famously provides quotations from a number of previously unknown apocalypses, with one attributed to Sethel and another to Enosh. John Reeves, in his major study of these traditions, points out that it is ‘only within Mandaeism’ that there can be found real connections for Enosh as an emissary of light54; and indeed he evidences important parallels from that corpus to the Mani-Codex text. In general, Jewish and Gnostic traditions paid relatively little attention to the son of Seth, unlike his father, and so here again there is this specific link between Manichaeism (where Enosh regularly appears after Sethel in the lists of true apostles55) and Mandaeism. In view of my restricted purpose in this present paper, I turn now to consideration of whether there are any traces of Anus {Utra in the Coptic Manichaica. The Mandaean saviour, whilst regularly invoked or blessed together with his ‘brothers’ Hibil and Sitil, is himself characteristically associated with episodes to do with Jerusalem, the Jews, and his conflict with the false msiha Jesus. Anus is a docetic figure who cures the sick and raises the dead; he combats Ruha, and finally destroys Jerusalem56. I have previously argued that these narratives reflect a polarity that is found also in Manichaeism between the docetic figure of the true saviour, the son of God (in Mandaeism appearing as Anus {Utra), and the Jesus bar Maryam, the messiah of the Jews57. Regardless of the wider argument, there is a striking parallel in the episode about the destruction of Jerusalem. The Sermon of the Great War58 recounts the continu- ing conflict between the Manichaean messengers of light and the power of error (plánj) in the false religions. In the time and place of Jesus she (i.e. error, compare the Mandaean figure of Ruha) is personified in Judaism, in its law and commandments. The divine wrath is manifested in the mission of Jesus who descends and takes a ‘bodily form’59, destroys her dwelling-place, Jerusa- lem, and overturns the temple60. Indeed, this becomes a defining characteristic of Jesus: ‘He despoiled Jerusalem, he took her pearls’61. Finally, we come to the preeminent saviour {utra: Manda d-Hiia, ‘Knowl- edge of Life’. In Manichaeism, Jesus Splendour is closely parallel in role, function and reverence. In particular, the narratives of both are focussed on the archetypal bringing of knowledge to Adam. To quote Mani himself according to Theodor bar Khoni:

54 J.C. Reeves, op. cit., p. 154 (see pp. 141-161 for his commentary on ‘the apocalypse of Enosh’). 55 See references supra. 56 See the summary in E. Lupieri, op. cit., pp. 146-150. 57 I. Gardner, ‘The Docetic Jesus’, Coptic Theological Papyri II, Wien: 1988, pp. 57-85. 58 Manichäische Homilien, ed. H.-J. Polotsky, Stuttgart 1934, 7, 8 - 42, 8. 59 ou#Rbe Nswma; compare PsBk2 42, 30-31 (and psalm 241 in general). 60 Homs. 11, 5-12. 61 PsBk2 194, 23. See further references and more detailed discussion in I. Gardner, op. cit., 1988, pp. 72-74.

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 9595 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12 96 SEARCHING FOR TRACES OF THE {UTRIA IN THE COPTIC MANICHAICA

(Mani) says that Jesus the Splendour approached the innocent Adam, and awoke him from the sleep of death … roused him, shook him and awakened him … And then Adam looked closely at himself and he knew who (he was). And (Jesus) showed him the Father on high; and his own self cast before the teeth of panther and elephant, devoured by dogs, mingled and imprisoned in everything that exists, shackled in the corruption of darkness. (Mani) says that he made him arise and taste the tree of life. And Adam looked, wept, and raised his voice violently like the roaring lion62.

Now, in terms of this paper it would be wonderful to be able to report that the term ‘knowledge of life’, Coptic psaune Mpwn#, was used as a stand- ard or characteristic epithet for Jesus Splendour. But this is not the case; and, so, how might we understand the parallel? Kurt Rudolph argued that Manda d-Hiia was the personification of Adam’s awakening gnosis63. However, in all these traditions knowledge is something given to him by the revealer from the outside, (as it were). This links back to the biblical complex of ideas about the serpent, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. These elements have been mostly erased in both Mandaeism and Manichaeism where the focus is firmly on the saviour Jesus Splendour or Manda d-Hiia who comes to the sleeping Adam. Still, there is evidence remaining in Manichaean literature of a more complex mythology where Jesus descends and ‘assumes’ Eve, as is the case in some of the Nag Hammadi tractates64. And I particularly draw attention to the passage in the Acta Archelai where it is claimed explicitly that the Manichaeans identified Jesus with the tree of knowledge65. I can only speculatively suggest that it may be at this point that the seed of the Jesus Splendour and Manda d-Hiia tradition was generated. In conclusion, there are unmistakeable traces of the {utria in the Coptic Manichaica and the early textual tradition of that community. This distinctive category of divine being, the Coptic rmmao, is found; as also are other specific forms such as Sitil / Sethel. What is now needed is an overarching theory to explain how this occurred in historical and social terms; and this short paper has been written as one building block in that enterprise.

62 See the reference supra (quoted from I. Gardner, S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, Cambridge: 2004, p. 17). 63 K. Rudolph, op. cit., pp. 316-328 (and ff. on Manda d-Hiia’s relationship to Hibil Ziwa). 64 See the discussion and evidence collected in W. Sundermann, ‘Eva illuminatrix’, in op. cit. ed. Ch. Reck, II, pp. 877-888. 65 Acta Archelai 11.1; quoted and discussed by J. Reeves, op. cit., p. 100 n. 81.

993793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd3793_Aram_22_05_Gardner.indd 9696 118/10/118/10/11 15:1215:12