WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MANICHEAN CONTROVERSY. TRANSLATED BY THE REV. RICHARD STOTHERT, M.A., BOMBAY ; AND ALBERT H. NEWMAN, D.D., L.L.D. PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION, IN TORONTO OF TH UNIVERSITY The following bibliography of Manichæism is taken from SCHAFF'S History of the Christian Church, vol. II. pp. 498-500 (new edition). Additions are indicated by brackets. 1. Oriental Sources: The most important, though of comparatively late date. (a) Mohammedan (Arabic): Kitáb al Fihrist. A history of Arabic literature to 987, by an Arab of Bagdad, usually called IBN ABI JAKUB AN-NADÎM; brought to light by Flügel, and published after his death by Rödiger and Müller, in 2 vols. Leipz. 1871-'72. Book IX. section first, treats of Manichæism. Flügel's translation, see below. Kessler calls the Fihrist a "Fündstätte allerersten Ranges." Next to it comes the relation of the Mohammedan philosopher, AL-SHAHRASTANI (d. 1153), in his History of Religious Parties and Philosophical Sects, Ed. Cureton, Lond. 1842, 2 vols. (I. 188-192); German translation by Haarbrücker, Halle, 1851. On other Mohammedan sources, see Kessler in Herzog,2 IX., 225 sq. (b) Persian Sources: relating to the life of Mani, the Shâhnâmeh (the King's Book) of FIRDAUSI; ed. by Jul. Mohl, Paris, 1866 (V. 472–475). See Kessler, ibid. 225. [ALBIRUNI'S Chronology of Ancient Nations, tr. by E. Sachau, and published by the Oriental Translation Fund, Lond. 1879. Albîrunî lived 973-1048, and is said to have possessed vast literary resources no longer available to us. His work seems to be based on early Manichæan sources, and strikingly confirms the narrative preserved by the Fihrist. See also articles by WEST and THOMAS in Journal of the Asiatic Society, 1868, 1870, 1871.] (c) Christian Sources: In Arabic, the Alexandrian Patriarch EUTYCHIUS (d. 916). Annales, ed. Pococke, Oxon. 1628; BARHEBRÆUS (d. 1286), in his Historia Dynastiarum, ed. Pococke. In Syriac: EPHRAEM SYRUS (d. 393), in various writings. ESNIG or ESNIK, an Armenian bishop of the 5th Century, who wrote against Marcion and Mani (German translation from the Armenian by C. Fr. Neumann, in Illgen's Zeitschrift für die Hist. Theologie, 1834, pp. 77-78). 2. Greek Sources: [ALEXANDER OF LYCOPOLIS: The Tenets of the Manichæans (first published by Combefis, with a Latin version, in the Auctararium Novissimum, Bibl. S. S. Patrum; again by Gallandi, in his Bibl. Patrum, vol. IV. p. 73 sq. An English translation by Rev. James B. H. Hawkins, M.A., appeared in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. XIV. p. 236 sq.; Am. ed. vol. VI. p. 237 sq. Alexander represents himself as a convert from Paganism to Manichæism, and from Manichæism to Orthodoxy. He claims to have learned Man ichæism from those who were intimately associated with Mani himself, and is, therefore, one of the earliest witnesses.'] EUSEBIUS (H. E. VII. 31, a brief account). EPIPHANIUS (Haer. 66). CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (Catech. VI. 20 sq.). TITUS OF BOSTRA (poo Mantzaiova, ed P. de Lagarde, 1859). PHOTIUS: Adv. Manichæos (Cod. 179, Biblioth.). JOHN OF DAMASCUS: De Haeres. and Dial. [PETRUS SICULUS, Hist. Manichæorum.] 3. Latin Sources: ARCHELAUS (Bishop of Cascar in Mesopotamia, d. about 278): Acta Disputationis cum Manete Haresiarcha; first written in Syriac, and so far belonging to the Oriental Christian Sources (Comp. Jerome, de Vir. Ill. 72), but extant only in a Latin translation, which seems to have been made from the Greek, edited by ZACAGNI (Rome, 1698), and ROUTH (in Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. V. 3-206); Eng. transl. in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library (vol. XX. 272-419). [Am. ed. vol. VI. p. 173 sq.]. These Acts purport to contain the report of a disputation between Archelaus and Mani before a large assembly, which was in full sympathy with the orthodox bishop, but (as Beausobre first proved), they are in form a fiction from the first quarter of the fourth century (about 320), by a Syrian ecclesiastic (probably of Edessa), yet based upon Manichæan documents, and containing much information about Manichæan doctrines. They consist of various pieces, and were the chief source of information to the West. Mani is represented (ch. 12), as appearing in a many-colored cloak and trousers, with a sturdy staff of ebony, a Babylonian book under his left arm, and with a mien of an old Persian master. In his defense he quotes freely from the N. T. At the end, he makes his escape to Persia (ch. 55). Comp. H. v. ZITTWITZ: Die Acta Archelai et Manetis untersucht, in Kahnis' Zeitschrift für d. Hist. Theol. 1873, No. IV. OBLASINSKI: Acta Disput. Arch., etc. Lips. 1874 (inaugural dissert.). AD. HARNACK: Die Acta Archelai und das Diatessaron Tatians, in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. vol. I. Heft 3 (1883), p. 137–153. Harnack tries to prove that the Gospel variations of Archelaus are taken from Tatian's Diatessaron. ST. AUGUSTIN (d. 430, the chief Latin authority next to the translation of Archelaus). [Besides the treatises published in Clark's series, Contra Fortunatum quendam Manichæorum Presbyterum Disput. I. et II., Contra Adimantum Manichæi discipulum, Contra Secundinum Manichæum, De Natura Boni, De duabus Animabus, De Utilitate Credendi, De Haeres. XLVI. Of these, De duabus Animabus, Contra Fortunatum, and De Natura Boni are added in the present edition, and De Utilitate Credendi has been included among Augustin's shorter theological treatises in vol. III. of the present series. In the Confessions and the Letters, moreover, the Manichæans figure prominently. The treatises included in the present series may be said to fairly represent Augustin's manner of dealing with Manichæism. The Anti-Manichæan writings are found chiefly in vol. VIII. of the Benedictine edition, and in volumes I. and XI. of the Migne reprint. Augustin's personal connection with the sect extending over a period of nine years, and his consummate ability in dealing with this form of error, together with the fact that he quotes largely from Manichæan literature, render his works the highest authority for Manichæism as it existed in the West at the close of the fifth century.] Comp. also the Acts of Councils against the Manichæans from the fourth century onwards, in Mansi and Hefele [and Hardouin]. II. MODERN WORKS. ISAAC DE BEAUSOBRE (b. 1659 in France, pastor of the French church in Berlin, d. 1738): Histoire Crit. de Manichée et du Manichéisme, Amst. 1634 and '39, 2 vols. 4to. Part of the first volume is historical, the second doctrinal. Very full and scholarly. He intended to write a third volume on the later Manichæans. F. CHR. BAUR: Das Manichäische Religionssystem nach den Quellen neu untersucht und entwickelt, Tüb. 1831 (500 pages). A compre 1 Baur discredits this claim on internal grounds (Das Manich. Religionssystem, p. 7). hensive, philosophical and critical view. He calls the Manich, system a "glühend prächtiges Natur-und Weltgedicht." [An able critique of Baur's work by Schneckenburger appeared in the "Theol. Studien u. Kritiken," 1833, p. 875 sq. Schneckenburger strives to make it appear that Baur unduly minifies the Christian element in Manichæism. Later researches have tended to confirm Baur's main position. The Oriental sources employed by Flügel and Kessler have thrown much light upon the character of primitive Manichæism, and have enabled us to determine more precisely than Beausobre and Baur were able to do the constituent elements of Mani's system. A. v. WEGNERN: Manichæorum Indulgentia, Lips. 1827. Wegnern points out the resemblance between the Manichæan system, in accordance with which the "hearers " participate in the merits of the "elect " without subjecting themselves to the rigorous asceticism practiced by the latter, and the later doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Roman Catholic church ] TRECHSEL: Ueber Kanon, Kritik und Exegese der Manichäer, Bern, 1832. D. CHWOLSON: Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, Petersb. 1856, 2 vols. G. FLUGEL: Mani, seine Lehre und seine Scriften. Aus dem Fihrist des Abî Jakub an-Nadim (987), Leipz. 1862. Text, translation and commentary, 440 pages. [Of the highest value, the principal document on which the work is based being, probably, the most authentic exposition of primitive Manichæan doctrine.] K. KESSLER: Untersuchungen zur Genesis des Manich. Rel. Systems, Leipz. 1876. By the same: Mânî oder Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Religionsmischung im Semitismus, Leipz. 1887. See also his thorough article, Mânî und die Manichær, in "Herzog," new ed. vol. IX. 223–259 (abridged in Schaff's "Encyclop." II. 1396-1398). [Kessler has done more than any other writer to establish the relation between the Manichæans and the earlier Oriental sects, and between these and the old Babylonian religion. The author of this introduction wishes to express his deep obligation to Kessler. The article on the “ Mandäer" in "Herzog," by the same author, is valuable in this connection, though his attempt to exclude all historical connection between this Babylonian Gnostic sect and Palestine can hardly be pronounced a success. J. B. MOZLEY: Ruling Ideas in Early Ages; lecture on "The Manichæans and the Jewish Fathers," with special reference to Augustin's method of dealing with the cavils of the Manichæans.] G. T. STOKES: Manes and Manichæans, in "Smith and Wace," III. 792-801. A. HARNACK: Manichæism, in 9th ed. of the "Encycl. Britannica," vol. XV. (1883), 481-487. [Also in German, as a Beigabe to his Lehrbuch d. Dogmengeschichte, vol. I. p. 681 sq. Harnack follows Kessler in all essential particulars. Of Kessler's article in "Herzog" he says: "This arti cle contains the best that we possess on Manichæism." In this we concur. W. CUNNINGHAM: S. Austin and his Place in the History of Christian Thought, Hulsean Lectures, 1885, P. 45-72, and passim, Lond. 1886. This treatise is of considerable value, especially as it regards the philosophical attitude of Augustin towards Manichæism.] The accounts of Mosheim, Lardner, Schröckh, Walch, Neander, Gieseler [and Wolf]. CHAPTER II.-PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS, AND ANTECEDENTS OF MANICHÆISM. 66 About 500 years before the commencement of the Christian era," writes Professor Monier Williams,' X 66 a great stir seems to have taken place in Indo-Aryan, as in Grecian minds, and indeed in thinking minds everywhere throughout the then civilized world. Thus when Buddha arose in India, Greece had her thinkers in Pythagoras, Persia in Zoroaster, and China in Confucius. Men began to ask themselves earnestly such questions as What am I? Whence have I come? Whither am I going? How can I explain my consciousness of personal existence? What is the relationship between my material and immaterial nature? What is the world in which I find myself? did a wise, good and all-powerful Being create it out of nothing? or did it evolve out of an eternal germ? or did it come together by 1 Indian Wisdom, 3rd ed. (1876), p. 49. |