THE LIGHTANDTHE DARKNESSStudies in Manichaeism and itslMJrldEDITED BYPAUL MIRECKJANDJASON BEDUHN 7< ? .>.< ,. I 6 S ) .BR1LLLEIDEN BOSTON' KQLN2001This book is printed on acid-free paper.Cover design:Ccdilles I Studio Cursier, AmsterdamCover illustration: Alje OlthofLibrary of Congress Cataloging.in.PublieatioD DataThl: light and thl: darkness: studies in r-bnichal:ism and its world I edited byPaul Mireeki andjasonBeJ)uhn,p. eill. - (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean studies; 50)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 9004-116737l. Manichaeisrn-Congresses. I.r-lirecki, Paul Allan. 11. BeDuhn,jason.Ill. Series.BT1410.L48 2001299' .932---de21 2001025757Cll'Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-EinheitsaufnaJuneThelight andthe darkness:studiesinmanichaeism andits world/ cd.by PaulMireeki andjasonBcDuhn. - Lciden; Boston;Kijln: Brill, 200 I(Nag Hammadi and Maniehaean studies: 50)ISUN 90-04-11673-7ISSN 0929-2470ISBN 9004116737ClJfr.yright 2001 by KOIlinklrjkt Brill nI) l.adm, TheAll rights reservtd. No pari rifthis puMirationIn'!}' be rt/ffoduad, Iranswttd, slqred ina system, or /rans1l/il/ed in a'1)lflml or by atIY means, ek"ronir,mechanical, pllo/Q(;opying, recording or o/hmuise, wi/hout prior wnt/ellpermissiollfiom tI,e publisher.ta phO{fXOI!Y item.sfor i/llernal or personallISt is granted by Brill prolJided Ihalthe appropriatefies are paid direct{ytoTheCOpJ'rightClearanCl Center, 222 RostwOod DrilJt:, Suite 910f)anl/tfs Mil 01923, USA.Fees are subfrcila change.I'RI1'Io'TEI' IN TilENETHERLANl)STABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction. The Light andthe Darkness: Studies in tvlani-chacism andits ''''orld . .Paul MIKECKI andJasonBEDul-iNThe Metabolism of Salvation: l\llanichacan Concepts of HumanPhysiology...... . .JasonBI:DuliNDidymus theBlind'sKnowledge of ManichacismByardBENNErI'luxla unum lalus terra lenebrarum: The Division of Primordial Space inAmi-Manichacan Writers' Description of the Manichacan Cos-Inagally .ByardBENNET!'Prolegomena to a Study of WomeninManichacism ....J. KevinCOYLETheReconstructionof Mani's EpistlesfromThreeCopticCodices (Ismam el-Kharab andtvledinet tVladi). .. .lainGARDNERReconstructing ManichaeanBookPaintings through the Techni-que of Their Makers: The Case of TheV1ilrk of Religion Scene onMIK 1114974rCClO .ZsuzsannaGUIJ\CSIThe Authcnticity andDOClrine of (Ps.?)Mani'sLetter to Menoeh ...GeoffreyHARRISON andJasonJ3EDuHNManichaean Allusions to Ritual and iVlagic:Spells forInvisibilityinthe Coptic Kephalaia . .Paul MIRECKJOnHumanRaces, Semi-HumanBeings andMonstersWernerA ManichaeanLiturgical Instruction onthe Act of Almsgiving\-VerncrA Manichacan:rurkicDisputcinRunic Script ..Pcter Subject indexText index .538687993105128173181201209220221INTRODUCTIONTHE LIGHT AND THE DARKNESS:STUDIESIN MANICHAEISM ANDITSWORLDPAULMIRECKI AND JASONBEDUJ-INThisisthe second volume of scholarly studiesinManichacismwhichwereoriginallyprcscnlcdbeforetheManichacanStudies Group oftheSociety of Biblical Literaturefrom1997through 1999. Likeitspredecessor, EmergingJromDarkness: Studies intheRecovery ofManichaeanSources (NHMS43; Brill, 1997), this volumepresentsthelatest international scholarship fromleading researchersinthe growing field of.Manichaean studies. Here we movefromthe continuing foundationalwork of recovering Manichacansourcestothenecessarytask of un-derstandingtherelationshipof Manichacanstothelargerworldinwhichtheylived.Thatrelationshiptookseveral distinct forms, andthecontributionsinthis bookanalyze those forms, examiningtherelationship of Manichaeism withdiverse cultural, social andreligioustraditions.The Manichaean community wasa self-contained entity,holdingitself apanfromtheworldby fosleringil1lernal cohesion. Tomain-tainthis seelusion,the Manichaean leadership employed severaltech-niques. Oneof theearliest was initiatedbyitsfounder Mani, whohimself wrotelellersencouragingOlhersin thefaith, providingin-struction, correcting error, and warning of harmful ideasthatmightinfiltratethecommunityfromtheoLltside. Likenearlyall of Mani'swritings, themajority of hisIeHershavebeenlost. lainGardner, in"TheReconstructionof Mani's I:.pislles fromThreeCopticCodices(lsmant e1-KharabandMcdinct Madi),"surveysthe fewsurvivingCoptic fragments of those !ellers andhow such scarcetexts cantakeusdirectlytotheteachings of Mani himself andwithindefinedso-cial and political contexts. Gardner indicates that the recovery of suchinformationisthenecess3'yprecursortounderstandingtheoriginsanddevelopment of Manichaeismandits relationshiptoitsworld.2 PAULMIRECKI At"lD JASONBEDUI-INGeoffreyHarrisonand Jason BcDuhndiscussanotherpossiblelet-ter orMani in"The Authcnlicity andDoctrine of{Ps.?)Mani'sLettertu lv/mudi" aIt:Ut:r tjuotcu LyJulian uf EdauUlIIill histn:ati:sc:: againstAugustine of Hippo. Harrison andBeDuhn arguethattheprese",edportionsof the lcuerdiscuss the principal topicof the differencesbetween Manichacan andBardaisanilc understandings orsill andthenature of thebody, showing closerelations betweenthetwo religions.After Mani's deathin277 C.E., his successors employed additionalmeansof defendingand llurluringthe community. TheeffonsofManichacanleaderstosettleinternal disputes anddefendthecom-munityagainst intrusive ideasfromtheoutsideworldare thesub*ject of apapyrological studybyPeterZieme. He joinstogethertwofragmentscontaining aManichaeandebateinrunic script, thetextof which he then edits and interprets in"AManichaeanTurkishDisputeinRunic Scripl."Werner Sundermann's lirst of twocontri-butionsinthisbook, "AManichaean Liturgical InstructionontheAct of Almsgiving," examines anIranianManichaeantext forwhatit can tell us about the role of ritual interdependence in theManichaean community. Thetext, argues Sundcrmann, contains panof ascript for theceremonyinwhichthelaitybrought offeringstotheElect.TheManichaeanresponsetotheworldwas morecomplexthansimplerejection. Mani consideredallof humanhistorymovingto-wardthe same goalhis religionenvisioned, and so Manichaeans lookwhat was useful fromsurrounding culturesandmadeit theirown.Inanhistory, theManichaeansappropriatedandadaptedcxistinganistic techniques. In"Reconstructing ManichacanBookPaintingsthrough the Technique of Their Makers," Zsuzsanna Culacsi not onlydiscerns lhemethodsandstagesof anisticproductionamongEaslCentral Asian Manichaeanartists, but uses that understandingtorepair, inOllr imagination, theravagesof timeuponararesurviv*ing example of Manichaean art. Inhis study, "Manichaean AllusionstoRitual andMagic: Spellsfor Invisibility intheCopticKephafaia,"Paul Mirecki continueshis discussion of theManichaeanknowledgeandusc of rilualstypicallyfoundinthemagical papyri. He demon-strates a Manichaeanfamiliaritywiththedetailsof popularritual,as well asthe diversity of Manichaeantheory andpractice concern-ing such forbiddenreligious practices. Yct Manichaeans also showedintcrest in anteccdent cosmological traditions and inthe popular genreof thefantastic, asilluslratedby Werner Sundermanninhissecond1l\'TROOUCTION 3contributionto thisvolume, "OnHumanRaces, Semi-HumanBe-ings andMonsters."Inmanyways, Manichaeans provetohave en-gagedinreligious, literal)' and artistic practices that transcended cullicboundariesandwerepart of thelargercultural heritageof thean-ciem world.Manichaeism alsorelatedtoits world asit dealtwithreligious andsocial issuescommon toall people. In recent decades, researchershavebegunto studyattitudes towardthebody, sexualityandgen-der roles inanciem society. Tofindaclear answer tothequestionof Manichaeism'sviewof women, J. KevinCoylesurveysrclevamsourcesandoutlinestheprioritiesandpossibilities of researchinafirst scholarlyanalysisof thisissue in"Prolegomena toaStudyofV\'omen in Manichaeislll." As part of thecontemporaryscholarlyimerestinancient altitudestowardthehumanbody, JasonBcDuhnoffers a systematic answertothe questionof Manichaeism's view ofthebodyin"TheMetabolismor Salvation: ~ l l a n i c h a e a n Conceptsof HumanPhysiology."His discussiontakes arewunexpected twistsin its treatmem or how the body interacts withthe soulin Manichaeananthropology;but eventhesetwists place Manichaeism comfortablywithintheinteractive medical and philosophical views or the ancientworld.Finally, thepartisan outsiders'view of Manichaeismaddsyet an-otherdimension tothestill emergingstoryof Manichaeism'srela-tionshiptoits world. This topicis dealtwithinlWO contributions byByard Bennett. In hisstudy, "Didymus the Blind's KnowledgeofManichaeism," he examines referencestoManichaeisminthe worksof the fourth-centuryChristian theologian Didymus the BlindofAlexandria. Bennettdemonstratesthat Didymushadalimitedun-derstanding of somebasicfeatures of Manichaeanthought, that heconfusedManichaean ideaswiththoseof someof Origen'soppo-nents (Hermogenes and the Marcionites), and that modernresearcherslikeJ. Leipoldt hadmisidcntifiedDidymus' unnamedopponents asManichaeans, wheninfact theybelongedtoother groups, suchastheValcntinians. InBcnnctt's second contribution,"JuxtaunumLatuserat terra tenebrarum: The Division of Primordial Space in Anti-ManichaeanWritcrs' Description of thetvlanichaeanCosmogony,"hereevaluates thelong-standing hypothesis of Cumont andKuegnerthat ccrtain Greek antiManichaean writers had accessto a lost Syriacworkof Mani, probablythe Book qf Gianls. Benncllarguesthat theunidentifiedsourcedocument usedby antiManichacanwriterswas4 PAULMIRECKI A,,;n JASONBEDUJINinsteadaGreektext known inWesternlI.lanichacancommunitiesfromthe first half of thefOUflh century onward, and may have containedmaterials excerptedfromMani'slost Living GospdIt is inthe natureofthescarceManichacansourcescurrentlyavailable that all of these studies are panial, preliminary and, in somecases, seminal. The field of lI.lanichaean studiesischaracterizedby.indeed dominatedby, fragmentarytexts and fragmentary art, aceumulatcd datawithproblematic gaps, and ancient testimonies whicharebiased, ambiguous and ohen comradiclory. The contributorstothis volume, evenintherecognized diversity of their approaches andinterests, shareanoptimismandadeterminationtoproceedtothequestions one would ask aboul anyreligious lradilion, andlO risetolhe challenges offeredby problematic sources. These sludies exhibitacautiousandconservativeattitudetoward interpretationsothatquestions canbe asked and answers can be elicited whichprovide asecure base for future scholarly investigations, as the story ofManichaeismanditsrelationshipto its worldcontinues to emerge.Paul ]\'lirecki and JasonBeDuhnBoston, November 1999THEMETABOLISM OF SALVATIOMANICHAEANCONCEPTS OF HUIVIANPHYSIOLOGYJASONBEDuHNTheManichaeanswerethoroughgoingmaterialists. That aspect oftheir religionmustbetakenseriously andfollowedinits illll)''1Cl onall areasof Manichacandoctrineandpractice. Thisstudypursuestheimplications of ManichacanmaterialisminsidetheManichacanbody itselfto sec howit actually functions, and specifically how phys-iologyisrelated to the palh of salvationManichacans sec themselvestraveling. It begins withanoverview ofthehumanpersonintermsfamiliartothosewho study Westernreligioustraditions, that is, thepersonasconstituted ofbodyandsoul. But thesecomfortabledis-tinctionsquicklybreakdown, since definessoul asasubstance beside others inthe body and inthe world, impacting uponandin turnimpacted by thcm. The hean ofthis study cxamines thephysiological production, dissemination, and recycling of soulinbothordinaryandbodies. Fromthisdiscussion, thestudyconcludes with some observations ontheintegral valuc ofphysiolo-gy forthcdoctrine andpractice of salvationand, con-scqucnlly, for the understandingof Manichaeismas a systembymodernresearchers. IBody and SoulIl is appropriatetobeginwithone oftherare surviving writings of himself, thePersian Sabuhragan. Theponionof theI Inthep"lgesthat follow, ImakefrCido.s1olilM 16.2; f1mllttic Corpus fu. 24.3-4; Epictetus /Ass. 3.22.59; and Tripmtilt Troctou(NH1.5) 105.35-37.n Staab, 4, lines 37-38.2 Sec the catena fragmcllt on Romans 7 (Staab, 4,line 34--5,line4) andComm. Ps. T.DIDYMUS THEBLIND'SKNOWLEDGEOF45Didymusknewthal lhe Manichaeansassociatedthe inclinationtoward evil wilh one's fleshlybody. Herecognizedlhal they viewedthefleshas evil innaturebut lhespirit (i.e. the enlrappedpaniclesofLight) as good in natureYDidymus was also aware lhat lheManichaeans viewed marilal intercourse as evil becauseitproducedbodies of sinful flesh.28Didymusrecognizedthat this negativeviewof the flesh ledtheManichaeans to adopt a docetic Christology.29 According to Didymus,286.16-31. In both passages, Didymus regarded these two inclinations (the Manichaeans'as twoopposingwillsandattempted toshowthat this idealedtounacceptable conclusions. Inthe first passage, Didymus argued thatif the body wereevil, thenit would naturally follow the evil will and perform evil actions, while the goodwill associatedwiththesoul wouldalwaysremainineffective; thefact that virtuousactions do occur, however, shows that this canllot bethe case. Inthe second passage,Oidymusarguedthat if, asthe Maniehaeansasserted, everyhumanbeing hadtwowills, then Christ (as a human being) would also have had two wills, one good and oneevil; the idea that Christ had an evil will is thenrejected as impious.27 CM10.6-7 (PC 39, 1093B4-5). Didymus asserted that the Manichaeans defendedtheir belief that thefleshwasevil byrcferringtothePaulinephrases"flesh ofsin"(Rom. B:3) and "body of sin" (Rom. 6:6); sec eM7.6 (pC39, 1092C1-2).In the catena fragment on Romans 7 edited by Staab (I, lines 4-6; 2, lines 2-3,7-8; 4,lines31-36; 5, lines l3-16), Oidymus' opponents alsoadvancedasproof-textsRom.7: 17-18and7:23-2-1. Theimportant roleplayedbycitations fromROln. 7in thearguments of Augustine's Mallichaean opponents has been noted by rOecret (AsPtclJdudans I'Afiiqueromaine: Lescontroverses deFor/una/us, Fauslusel Felix avecsainiAuglls/in[Varis: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1970j, 174; "L'utilisation des EpitfC:> de Paulchez les manichi:ens d'Afrique" inJ. Ries e/ aI., Le Epis/ole paoline nei manichei, i dona/uti eit pn'moAgos/ino[Rome: IstitutoPatristicoAugustinianum, 19B9], 52). SceespeciallyAugustine CorifessWns 5. IO.IB (where Augustinc is apparently satirizing the Manichaeanintcrpretation of Rom. 7: 17,20) andContra J.iJr!Ulwlum21(where Rom. 7:23-25is citedas a proof-text by Fortunatus); compare also Augustine's incidentalremarks about theManichaean interpretation of Rom. 7 in his De diversis qllaes/ionihllS ad SimphcionumI, q.I, 16. For the use of Rom.7: IB,24 in Manichacan polemic, sec alsoAnastasim of SinaiHoi/egos 14.2.43-48 (K.-H. Uthemann, AlUu/asii Sinai/ae VilU dux, CCSG8[Turnhout:Brepols, 1981],260); Rom. are citedtosupporttheManichaeanpositioninDisputa/io iii Pholini Manichaei cumPauW Chris/iallo (PCBB, 548C15-D8).Didymus' treatment ofEph. 2:3inCM1.1-2.2 (PC39, 1089B) suggeststhat hisopponents had ,llso appealed to this as a proof-tcxt, perhaps to show that the soul, bybeing boundto theflesh,callle10 possess anevilnatureandwastherefore alicnatcdfrom Cod. Asimilar interpretation of Eph. 2:3 by the Manichacan Hlflunatus is foundinAugustineConlraFor/una/urn(Zycha, 95, lines9-26); seeJ. Mehlmann, "Na/urajifiiirae". Hiswriaintny,re/alionisEpk2,31';jllSque cumdoc/rinade ptcea/ooriginali neXkf (Rome:Pont. Inst. Biblic., (957),41n.5, 173.28 CM14.1-2,6-7,14-21(PC39, 1096B9-CI,C5-6, CI4-D8). Inhisresponse,Didymustreatedhisopponentsas failingtodistinguishmarital intercoursefromfornication(Crvl 14.17-20; PC39,109604-7); asimilar characterizationof theManichaean positionis found in AugustineCOIl/raFeliCl'mI. 7-B (Zycha, 809, lines 6- 18;810, lines19-20,27-28).29 CM13.10,20-21(PC39, 1096A8; 85).46 BYARDBENNETrthey supported this position by referringLO Rom. 8:3, where Paul spokeofJesus receiving "the likeness of sinful flesh."30 The Coptic ManichaeanPsalm-Book oITersasimilar account, asserting that whenGodbecamemaninJcsushereceivedthe"likeness of theflesh(EJNNTCb..P'J,), the[material shape] of [manhood)."31 The expression IN NTCb.P'J.is reminiscenl of the phrase JNENCb..P'J., which the Coptic versions oftheBibleused to render 0IlOlWIlCX crapKoOrt the views of Numenius and his renections uponStoic teaching, as van""indcn (115) holds.58 BYARDBENNETI' andthestars wereheldresponsiblefor thecorruptionanddestruction occurring in the terrestrial realm. ,oThe Peratic explanationofhowthesetwopointswererelatedisrather obscure, but it isclearthatthepower of corruption waslikenedto water inmotion andwasbelieved to move around the celestial sphere in (or among) the wanderingstars.7lInsummary, althoughthesecondpassagefromDidymus' Com-mentaryonGenesis poses some challengesfortheinterpreter, thepas-sage appearstomakeuse of terminology andconcepts foundintheMiddlePlatonic interpretation of Plato'sTimaeus. Parallels were notedintheworks of HcrmogcnesandNumcniusandinthePcraticsys-temdiscussedbyHippolytus.Didymus' ascription ofthisMiddlePlatonicmaterial totheMani-chaeans is puzzling, bUl could be explained if one assumed that Didymusknew that his Manichacan contemporaries were interested in astrologyandthat astrological lore played a certain role in Manichaeanmythology.72Accordinglothe Coptic ManichaeanKephalaia, thefive10 Hippolytus RifUlatlo 5.14.5; 5.16.6; 5.17.2 (r...lareovich, 179, lines 27-28; 183, lines30-31;185, lineII).71 HippolytusRifutatio 5.16.2-3 (Marcovich, 182, lines7-13); compare5.14.1-14.There may be an echo of these Pcratic ideas in the Mandaean conception of the "blackwaters."In the accounts of the Mandaeall cosmogony given in theRha, the blackwaters arc the primordial stuff out of which the world is made; after the creation of theworld by the demiurge Ptahil, they encircle the earth. Seething with a turbulence likethat of boiling water, theblackwatersarethesouree ofeviland, togetherwiththesevenplanetsandthctwelvcconstellations, bring aboUlcorruptionintheterrestrialrealm. SeeM. Franzmann, LivingHilter: Mediating Ekmtntin Mandtuan Mytil and Ritual(Adelaide: Charles Strong Trust/AustralianAssociationfortheStudy of Religions,1989),2,9 n.14; I am indebted 10 Brian Mubaraki of the Mandaean Research Cemrefor scnding mc a copy of this monograph.72 SecVStcgcmann, "ZuKapitel 69der KeIJhalaiades Mani", ZeilschriflfiirdieneutestamentluheWUStn.sdUlfl /llld dit KundedtriillLrenKirw 37(1938) 214-223;R. Bcck,"Thein thc r..hnichaeanKephalaio", Zntschriflfiir Papyrologit ulld EpigraIJhik69(1987) 193-196;J. Tubach, "SpurcndesastronomischcnHcnochbuchesbcidcnr...liue1asiens" inP. Scholz and R. Stempel (cds.), Nuhia el Oritns Chrisljanus.Ftslschnflfiir C. Dtluf G. MUlier60.Gebllrlstag (Koln:J. Dimer, 1987),73-95; S.N.C.Lieu,Mallichaeismin lIlt LalerROIIUlnEmpire and Mtdmml China, 2 cd. (Tubingcn:J.C.B.Mohr, 1992), 177.179; ES. jones, "TheAstrological TrajectoryinAncient SyriacSpeakingChristianity(Elchasai, BardaisanandMani)" in L. CirilloandA.. vanTongcrloo(cds.), ManuhaeanStudies III. Alii delCongrtsSo InlLrna;:.ionaledi Stlldi"Manulzds,no e Orimte Cristiano Antuo" (Louvain: Brcpols, 1997), 183-200;A. Panaino,"Visione della voila celeste e ;,slro]obria nel Manichcismo" in Cirillo and van Tongerloo,249295. Cf. alsothecanonsascribedtoofMaipherqat: "Thcy[se. theManiehaeans]proclaimthe seven [plancts]and twelve[constellations]. Thcy say thatthere arc thrums and lots and the signs of the zodiac. They pcrsc\cre in thc chaldacanart"(tr. orA. Voobus, TheCallOnsascribedtoMamtaf.!fMaiplzerqatand Relnud Sollrces,DlDYMUS THEBLlI.m'SKNOWLEDGEOF"MAl'>JICHAEISM 59planetsand the twelvesigns of the zodiac wereformedfromandbelonged to the flve worlds ofas such, they were creaturesof Matter and, being evil in nature, gave rise to worldly evils (war, hunger,IUSl, etc.) andspiritualerror?' Informingthe cosmos, lheDemiurge(i.e. theLiving Spirit)hadimposedimporlant constraintsuponthesecvil agents, scizing and binding them and affixing thcmto lhe wheel ofthe stars, i.e. the celestial sphere.75According totheaCCOUlll giveninthe Kephaiaia, the zodiacal signs were suspended from the celestial sphereand rotated with il, while the plancts movedupon the sphere.76By thismotion, particles of light which had been trapped in fleshly bodies weredrawnup10 thepowers affixedtolhewheel ofthestars; theselightparticles werethenplunderedandtakenawaybythegood guardianwhohadbeensci over the sphere.77Thelight whichhadbeenplundered wasthenapparenllypassedtothe sunandmoonforpuriflcation.78Thewasteresultingfromthepuriflcationof thelightthen flowed down to earth via the wheel of the stars;79 this downlx)lIringof waste gaveriselO evils in theterrestrial realm.8oThe Manichaeansbelieved that over time this removal of light and return of waste had animportant cumulative effecl, producing a gradual decline in vilality inCSCO 440 [Scriptores Syri 192] n..ouvain: Peeters, 1982], 19, lines14-16).73 K 69;J67.23-30;69;168.1-7;69;J69.9-13. Presumablythetwolunarnodes (K69; J68.7,13; 69; 169.14), whose character and activities resembled those of the planetsand zodiacal signs, had the same origin.H K4;27.14-20; 15;48.34-35; 47;120.12-18; 69;167;32-33; 69;168.12-16; cf. K4;26. J 1-13, I 7-18; II 7.34-118.8; 64; 157.23-32. ComparealsoAlexanderofLyeopolis' summaryof Maniehaean mythology, wherethestars arcsaidtobe"moderately evil" (A. Hrinkmann, Ale;crll/dri L)'Co/Jolitalii. Contra il/allichaei opilliOlles displlw.tio[Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner, 1895.1,6, line12).75 K 47;119.2-17; 69; 167.3-9; 69; 168.16-26; 69; 169.9-11; 70; 173,24-30.76 K 47;119.3,10-12,17;69;167.11-13.17 K47; 119.17-20; 48; 121.22-24; 48; 121.35-122;5; 69; 167.20-22; 69.168.25-168.8;cf. K 47.119.24-120.20.Compare also PKell. Copt. I, lines 6-8 (Gardner, Kdlis,56).III K69;169.17-22; cr. 48;121.3-5,11-12,22-24; 48;121.35-122.4; 48;122.10-11;48; 123.12-15; 48;124.25-31. Due to the obscurity of these passages, my reconstructionof this point is conjectural.79 K 47;119.20-23; 48;121.6-11,25-30.fK) K48;121.25-32; cf. K69;168.26-169.8; 86;215.15-29; 86;216.14-21. It isnotclcar precisely how this downpouring of waste was supposed to produce these evils; theanswerappears 10lie inpart in thefact that the planctsandzodiacal signshadcorresponding agcncies which dwelt in the human body and produced bodily corruption(K 70;175.6-24; cf. K70;1 72.30-32). The connection between the "rulers" or "leaders"onthecelestial sphere (i.e. theplanetsandthesigns ofthezodiac)andthmeinthebody is nonetheless not elearly explained; sec K 0-12; 48; 121.18-20; 48; 122.6-8;64; 157.23-32; 86;215.5-11.60 BYARDBENNETfthe terrestrial realm.B1If Didymus was aware that such concepts playedaroleintheManichacanaccount of evil, thismight explainwhyheattributedto the ManichacansMiddle Platonicmaterial containingbroadly similar ideas.In conclusion, fromthe three passages fromDidymus' biblicalcommentaries which have been analyzed above, it is clear that Didymus'repofts of Manichacantcaching werenot uniformly accurate. In eachcase, views belongingtoearlier figures were seen to have beenerroneously ascribed to the Manichaeans. These incorrect attributionsmay have arisenfromthefact thatthe views espoused bythese earlierligureswefeinsome respectscomparablelOthoselater heldbytheManichaeans. Intwo ofthethreecases examined, Origen'swritingscould plausibly be regarded asthe source of Didymus' information.Theeditors of Didymus'workshavesuggestedthat somefunherpassages, inwhichtheopponentsarenot identified, arealsorefer-ences LOManichaeanteaching. These passagescanbesortedintofour groups onthe basis of their content. The first group of passagesaddresses thequestionof whether humanactionarises fromone'snature or constitution or fromone'spurposive choice. By analyzingthe concepts andterminology foundinthesepassages, it canbe seenthat Didymus was referring not LO the Manichaeans but to theValeminians, whose views wereknownto Didymus throughthe writ-ings of Origen.Themost detailedandinterestingof these passages is found InDidymus' Commentaryonthe Acts rifthe Apostles:Sinceafter he becameanapostleofJesus Paul saysthat he himselfbelievesintheGod of hisforefathers andinthe Lawandtheproph-ets, he makesit plainthat herecognizes oneGod of the Old and NewTestaments. For this reason, he also agrees with the Pharisees who alsothemselves hopefor the resurrectionof all people, thejust andtheunjust. Andsincesomehereticssaythat resurrectionpertainsnot tothebody buttothe purified soul, onemust inquire what they willsayabout the unjust persons who arc resurrected, since, according to them,thosewhoarcearthlyarebynaturenot purified. For Paul saidthattheunrighteous arc raised;is the resurrectionindicatednOI of bodies?Thentheysayabout theintermediatestate-whichindeedtheycalllhe psychic nature-that inthis casethis intermediate state undergoesachange, whichindeedis called"raising", aswhat is writtenabove81 Cf. K 57; 144.22-146.22; 57; 147.1-17.DIDYMUS THEBLIND'SKi"'-OWLEDGEOFMANICI'IAEISM 61shows: "And some of the scribes, rising up, contended, 'Volefindnoth-ing evilin thisman'" (Acts23:9). And againthey say that the"raised"'Ire more advancednf 'hf"irpf"rvf"rrf"d (rf. ACIS20,30)."Inthispassage, Didymushasthrowntogether beliefs belongingtothe Valentinians and the Marcionites in a rather careless fashion. Thefirst twopremises aretobeascribedtotheMareionites:(l) TheGodwhospokethroughtheLawandProphetsisdifferentthantheGod whorevealedhimself intheNew Testament;83(2) There willbe a resurrectionnot of bodies, but of purified souls;84The remaining premises, however, are to be ascribed to the Valentinians:(I) The earthly natureis unable to be purified;85(2) Thestate or psychic nature(I.jfUXIKTlis capable of undergoing change;86(3) This change can be described as "raising" or "awaking"Several otherpassagesinDidymus' biblical commentaries whichhavebeenthought torefertotheManichaeans actually concerntheValentinians. In these passages Didymus referred to"thosewho82 Comm. ACI. AIMSl. 24: 15 (Cramer, v. 3, 378, lines 4-18).83 Irenaeus Adversush(UT'eses 1.27.2; TertullianAd1Jffsus Marcionem1.19.4-5; '1-.34.15;ps.-Tertullian Contmomnes haereses6.1-2; Epiphanius PananOIl 42.4. 1-2; A. von Harnack,A/arewn. DasEvangeiiumoomfiemdenColi, 2 cd., TU45(Leipzig:j.C. Hinrichs, 1924),106117. Accordingto[renaeus Adversushorreses 1.7.3, Valentinusofferedadifferentanalysis, assertingthat thecontents oftheOldlcstament werederivedfromthreedifferclll sources; a lhreefold divisionis also foundinPtolemaeus Epislula ad /w,ram (inEpiphanius POllanon 33.4.1-2; 33.5.1-7; 33.6.1-5). Didymus' confusion may ha\'e arisenfrom acquaintance with a heresiologieal work whieh attributed lhe MarcioniTe positionto Valentinus; sec, for example, Hippolytus Rifutatio 6.35.1.114 Ircnacus Advmus luweses1.27.3; Tertullian Adl,ersus Mardonrm1.24.3; HippolytusRiflliotio 10.19.3; Adamantius Do(clajide ill Drum 5.20 (Sande Bakhuyzen, 214, lines 3-10); EpiphaniusPallanon 42.3.5;Harnack, ..Hardo", 136-137.8S Ircnaeus Adversus harreses 1.6.1-2; 1.7.5.Il6 SeeIrenaeusAduersushaereses 1.6. I; 1.6.4; 1.7.1; 1.7.5; Clement ofAlexandriaSirom. 4.13.91.2;Ptolemaeus Epislulo ad l%ram (inEpiphaniusPatlanon 33.7.4-:'1).87 InearlyChristianliterature("raising"or"awaking") wasmedasasynonym (VEKpWV) ("resurrection [of lhe dead]"), a usage which appearsalready in the NewTestamen, itself (Mt. 27:53). The persons 10 whom Didymus referredappear 10 have believed in a spiritual resurrection occurring in This present life, throughwhich one received knowledge and became enlightened. SeeExcerpla ex TIl()(/oio 3.1-2;7.5 and the Nag Hammadi Trealiseon tile Resurrection (NH1.4) 49.15-26 with the parallelpassages cited inr..t Malinineel al.. De resurrectione (Zurich: RascheI'Verlag, 1963), 42(on49.15-16); M.1... Peel, Thet:pistle 10 Rhrginos:I! Valrntimilll !-(./I"011 Ihe ResurrectirJl/(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1969), 96;j.E. Mcnard,Le traili sur 10 Risurrection(Quebec:Lcs Presses de l'UIliversitcLaval, 1983), 79-81; H.\V. Attridge,Nag HammadiCodex /(TheJllng Codex) (Lciden: EJBrill, 1985),205206.62 BYARDBENNETrintroduce the natures" (Ot 'tae; c:pUOEtO(>millrgf' i5;,.Isointelligibleinterms of Marcionite be-lief; theMarcionites heldthat the Demiurgewasnot evil, strictlyspeaking, but only inferior in character.Theprooftextscitedin theabovepassagesarealsoattestedinreports of Marcionite exegesis but arc not found in Manichaean texts.Origen's discussion of Ex. 4: II b, for example, strongly suggests thatthat verse hadbeen usedasa Marcioniteproof-text. lOCIThe 1ar9/ G!mm. 2 Car. 5: 1719 (pC1708A27; Stailb, 29, line 2024). Cf. G!mm. 2 Car. 3: 17(pC 39, 1697B2-7; Staab, 23, lincs 28-32): "By thcse words is refuted the fable of thosewho cut Cod's seripture in two. For thercis onc [scriptureJ which at onc time is veiledin types and shadow, butatanother time appears without any vciling, seeing that wercccivc thc rc\-'Clalion of it fromthc Lord's spirit, believing that 'lhe Spirit of the Lord'is 'freedom.'"98 Comm. 2 Cor. 2: 17 (PC39, 1692C4-7; Staab, 20, lines 23-27).9'1 See the rcmarksof Harnack (Alarcion, 96- n., Momon [Leipzig,j.C. Hinrichs, 1923J, 30, 34) 011Didymus Comm. 2 Cor.2:17 (Staab, 2O,line 25-26, line9).100 OrigenHom. Xum. 17.3. i'ortheidentificationofEx. 4: II basal\ larcioniteproor lOt, 3CC A. Mehal, flomilia s-rlaft'i>mbrt.l, SC 29(ParU: Ce.rf, 1951),345n.l; E..).mod, 0rig0u. l'hilalv 2/-27. Sur klibre arbim, SC 226 (Paris: Cerf, 1976), 165n.l. Orisen dsewhcrt uggcsloo 5C\"Cral differcm ways or resolving me diffteuhies posedby this \'CfSC. See Comm. em. 3 (=PfIilaJiD 23.11; Eosebios Pratp. aang. 6.11.51); Comm.All. 13.6; Hom. U. 16.8; andcomparc W Schuban, "ChristlK:he Predigten ausAgypten",DIDYMUS THEBLIND'SKNOWLEDGEOFMANICHAEISM 65cioniteMarcus inthedialogueDerecta fide inDeumlikewiseidcmi-fiedthe "old things"whichhavepassed away (2Cor. 5: 17) withthcbooks of theLaw andtheProphCls.IO] In conclusion, it appearsthatthesecondgroupof passagesshouldbe understoodtorefer totheMarcionitesrathcrthantheManichacans.In Didymus' Commentary onJob, there aretwo passages which alludetopersonsadvocatingthedoctrineof transmigration:For it waslittingfor thesaint toprayforrational beingstopushontoward vinue andno longer suffer a returnto aninferior condition-forit isnotthe same[condition] [i.e. terrestrial life],as those whoin-troducetransmigrationthink.IO'2... thcn that whcn a manhas died, hc will not, as many men hold, comcto spendtimehere again. 103Whileit is truethattheManichaeansdidbelieveIII transmigration,there is noevidence toshowthat Didymushasthe Manichacansinview in the abovepassages. The idea of transmigrationwas accepledbya wide varietyofgroups in the ancient world, includingthePythagoreans, PlatonislS, and a number of figures who have often beengrouped under the rather vague rubric of "Gnosticism."]l)ol Furthermore,thewordusedbyDidymusinthesepassagesislheword used in the Platonic tradition, rather than the wordwhich appears in Manichaean texts and the principal anti-Manichaeansources. lOS Thereis thusno compelling reasontointerpret Didymus'MitleilulIgmdeJ Deutschen hutitutJjiir df.J'PtiJche AllertlllflJ!wllde ill KairoI (1930) 97, lines 35-48.101 Adamantius De rectafide inDeum 2.16 (SandeBakhu)'""J:cn, 90, lines 34-35).102 Comm. ]obT. 59.23-29.103 Comm.Job 7:9 (Hagedorn and Hagedorn, v. I, 423lno. 146], lines 7-8). Asimilarremark is found in a catena fral,'ment on.Job10:21 whieh has been ascribed to Didymus(PG39, 114505-8): '1\.ndhe teaches amost noblekind of doctrine, that he who hasonce departcd from lire no longer returns to this lire, as those who maintain the fantastietheoryabout transmigrationsrelate."Thislatterfragment, however, belongsnot toDidymus but to Olympicx:lorus; see U. and D. Hagedorn,Olympiodor.DiMOII von Alexalldria.Kommmtar ZIl Hiob, rrs 24 (Berlin:Wde Cruyter, 1984), 109, lines 7-9.104 For acritical discussion of themcanings that havebeenassignedto theword"Gnosticism", seeM.A. Williams, Rethiw.;ing"GllOsticism": An Argllmmljor Dismalliling aDubiousCategory (Princeton: PrincetonUniv. Press, 1996). lowe thisreferencc toPro[PaulMirccki.105 SeeP 218.6-7; Epiphanius Panan'on66.55.1; theSeven ChaptersattributedtoZacharias of Mitylcne (Lieu,"Early", 184, lincs 169-170); thclong formulafortheabjuration ofManichaeism (Lieu, "Early", 185l1465Il]); comparc theusc66 BYARDBENNETTremarks abouttransmigration as references to Manichacan teaching.Two passagesinDidymus' Commt1luzry on/he Psalms which deal withthedenial of providencehavealsobeeninterpreted as rderencestoManichacanlcaching. Inthefirst passage, theDevil is saidtohavebeenresponsiblefordecreeing alack of providence (cmpovoncria). He Esc. theDevil] per-suadedmanypeople, at anyrale, tolaydownthedoctrine that theworldis without aguardian, having himselfprevioLlsly departedfromthecorrcctview aboutCod's administrationand judgment. 106Didymus made a similar parenthetical remarkinthe secondpassage:Contemplatingthepreviously-mentionedthings, men, wholongagoattestedto their own cleverness, [were troubled], no longer abiding bythe deluded opinions which were held by the sophists, being seized withfearonaccount of theirassent toimpiolls doctrines of this sarI. Forthey were learning from them that there would be no providence, sinceallthingsaremoved spontaneously (be... I07It is likelythat bothof these referencesconcernthe viewsof theEpicureans rather than the Manichaeans. The word Ct.7tPOvOllota, whichappears in the first passage, is routinely used in doxographicalliteratureto indicate theEpicureanposition.108The same is true of the phrase eKwhich appears in thesecondpassage. Aristotlehadattributcdtothcatomiststhcviewthatthings wcre moved "spontaneously" (i.e. of themselves, not byanexternal agencyin accordance with aconscioLis purpose)I09; fromPlutarch onwards, this phrase was routinely used to describc Epicurus'atomism, an account oftheworldinwhich divineprovidenceplayednopart.110Inhis Commentaryon Ecclesiastes, Oidymus himselflikewiseinAria/lrd/dai 10 (Beeson, 15, line 6). Accordingto Seneca(Ep. 108.19),theuse of(literally, "pouring fromonevessel intoanother")toindi-calCtransmigrationwas aPythagoreaninnovation.106 Camm. Ps. 9:25-27 (pC39, 1201 C 12-DI; Muhlenberg, v. J l 157, lines 29-31).107 Conllll. Ps. 63:8 (rvlUhlcnberg, v.2, 49, lines 4-8).1011 Sec, forexample, Alexander ofAphrodisias DeJalo31 (203.11 Bruns=R.\V.Sharples, Alexandaof /lphrodi.siastJnFale [London: Duckworth, 1983], 205}and SocratesSeholastieus Hislana ec&sia.stica 3. 16.1 I (e.C. Hanscn, &krales. Ki1chenge.schichle [Berlin:Akademie-Verlag, 19951, 211, lines 9-10). ForDidymus' own accounl of providence,sec Comm. Ps. 21:9 (PC 39, 1277C; Muhlenberg,v. 1,225).109 AriSlotie Plrysiu 2.4 (196a25-26).110 PlutarchDe dtJutu OTacu{orum19 (420B);De saa numinu vinditta 3 (5490).DIDYMUS THEBLIND'SKNOWLEDGEOFMAJ"Vith an unwilling mind they come together and with secretshame they act,30 at whichtime they consider light haleful,lest theirworksbemademanifest (cf. John3:20-2\; Ephesians5: 13);onaccount ofwhichtheApostlesays: It is 1101 ofollewhowills (Romans9: 16), so that may be understood: "this work". For if wc do good, it isnot of thenesh, sincethe works of thejleshare manifest, wlJich arejOTIlico-23 John 3:20-21omnis cnim qui mala .-gil odit lucem el non venit ad lucem ut nonarguantur opera eius quiautemfacit veritaternveniladlucemlit rnanifeslentur eiusopera, Vulg.; cf. Eph. 5: 13 omnia autem quae arguuntur lumine manifestallnJr omneenim quod rnanifeslalur lumen cst, Vulg..14 Rom. 9: 16 igilur non volentis... Dei, Vulg.Gal. 5: 19 manifesta autem sunt opera carnis quae sunt fornicatio.. , Vulg.26 Gal. 5:22 fructus autem spirilus cst carilas gaudium pax..., Vulg.17 Rom. 7: 19 non enim quod vola bonum hoc facio sed quod nolo malum hoc ago,Vulg.; cf. Rom. 7: 15 quod enim operar non illlellegonOll enim quod vola hoc ago sedquod odi illud facio;7.20 si aulem quod nolo illud facio non ego operar illud sed quodhabilat inme pcccaturn, Vulg2A Rom. 7:8 occasiolle autem acccpta peccatum per mandatum operatum cst in meomllcm concupisccJ1Iiam ..., Vulg.19 Cf. almoSI IhesamepassageinOp. imp. 185 (whichhasbcenomittedbelow):Nam poslquam dixit: "Ne manifcslcntur opcra eorum; propter quod aposlolus", inquil,"damaradRomanos:.Nonbonumquodvoloago, Jed malumoperorquod exlwrrto. Dolebatcnim", inquil, "quia pcecalum id eSI diabolus operahalur in co ornncmconcupiscentiam,legalis aucloritasindical malumconcupisccllliae,cumomnemeiususumviluperal,qucm caro miratur el!audat." For aftenvards he said: "Lest their works be made mani-fest; on account of which", he says, "the Apostle proclaims to the Romans: .Not tll6g00dwhuh I wish do I do, but 1perftrm thelml whidl I abhor.he grieves", he says, "thai sin, i.e.,the de"il, performs in himself every concupiscence, legal authorilY indicates Ihel..'Vil ofconcupiscence when il censures every action of iI, which the flesh admires and praises."30 Perhaps = "do il."(180)(183)(186)LErn;RTOMENOCH: AUTHENTICrlYANDDOCTRINE [35lioll, (Galatians 5: 19) Cl cetera, or if we do evil,it isnOt of the soul,since Ihefruit qf tile spiritis peace {und)joy(Galalians 5:22). FinallytheApostle proclaims also to the Romans: .Nollhegoodwhich I wish. do I do.bull perfirm the evil wllich I abhor (Romans 7: 19). (2) You sec the voice ofthecontumacioussoul defendingthe freedomof thesoul againstconcupiscence. For he grieves that sin, i.e., the devil, performs in him-self every concupiscence (cr. Romans7:8). The authority of the lawindicates its evil whenil censures all ilS actions, whichtheOeshad-mires andpraiscs;31forall biuerness of concupisccncc32is sweet tothe soul, through which the soul is nourished and brought to \"igor. Inshort, themindofonewhorestrainshimself fromevery actionofconcupiscence is vigilam, it is enriched and prospers, but througb theaction of concupiscence, it becomes accustomed to decay."lui. (I) Quid r.,'lanicheus dicit? "Per concupiscentiam corporum auc-lor diabolus esl; per hanc diabulus corpora, non animas aucupatur;toile", inquit, "malignaestirpis radicemel spiritalisfies; de hacapostolus c1amat adRomanos: .Noll bonumquod11010,33 sed malwll operorquod exhorreo."[...JAug., [...]Oulian): \Nhat doesMani say?"Throughconcupiscencetbe authorof honit'Si ~ The nevil; throllgh tbis the devil lies in wait for bodies, notsouls; lake away", he says, "the roOt of the malign shoot and you willbecome spirituaJ; concerning tl1is34the Apostle proclaims to the Ro-mans:j./"Ol Ihe goodwhichI wish, bul theevilwhich Iabhordo J perform(Romans7: 19)."luI. Nam cum nos arguisset, quia dice remus a deo fieri homines, quosseminari fateremllr per coeuntiumvoluptatem: "Stlllti", inqllit,"dicunl a cleo esse conclitum, quod certi sunt a concupiscemia gigni,cum animo nolcnte coeune"Aug., [...]Oulian): For when he[i.e., Mani] had rebukedus for saying thathu-mans arcmadeby God, whomweprofess arc inseminated throughthe pleasure of people copulating: "I=OOlish men", he says, "say Ihatit wasformedbyGod, whichtheyknowforcertainisbegottenbyconcupiscence, whenthey join3Swith unwilling mind."lui. (I) [...] etiamManichcusitac1isseruit: "Operae", inquit, "prc-31 SeenoTe 29 above.32 I.e., "everything thatis bitterTO concupiscence."33 ago, foundinthe quotation of the verse inOp. imp. 177,is here omined.3'1 The feminine demonstrative refers to "concupiscence."3 ~ I.e., "copulate."136 GEOFFREYHARRISONAND JASONBEDUHNtiulnest advencre, quiaprima anima, quae adeo luminis manavil,accepit fabricamiSlam corporis, ut cam freno suo rcgcrcl. Iinit man-datum, peccalurnTtuixit,36quodvidebaturcaptivum, invenit aniculossuos diabolus, matcriam concupiscentiacincamseduxit ct per iJlamoccidit. Lexquidemsancia, sedsanctasanClae, et mandatumeliustumelbonum,37sediustaect bonae," (2) Sicctiaminillaad Patticiumcpistula:38"Quasi de primae factum Oarc substantiae meliorem", dicit,"scculis,"[...]Oulian): (I) [...] Mani alsoarguedlhus. "It isworthwhile", hesays,"notingthat thefirst soul whichflowedfromtheGodof light re-ceivedlhal fabricofthebody so that it [i.e., the "first soul"] mightruleit [I.e., the"fabric"] withits ownreins. The order came; sinrwived(Romans7:9), which seemed captive; the devil foundhis own limbs,heseduced (cr. Romans 7: II) thematter of concupiscenceinit (i.e.,the "fabric")and lhrough that[i.e., lhe "matter of concupiscence")he fell. The law illdud (is)holy, but (only) holy for the holy (soul),39 andthe order (is) bothjllst andgood (Romans 7: 12), bur (only) for the just andgood (soul)."4O (2) Thus also in the ]elter to Patucius: ''As if (what was)madefromlheflower ofthefirstsubstance (was)", he says, "benerlhan what followed."Aug.: (I) ... Hine cst, quod animam primam dicit adeo lucis manasscet acccpissc iSlamfabricam corporis, ut earnfreno suo regcl'el. Nonenimhocde homine, seddeanimabonadicit, quamdei partemalquc naturam universo mUllelo el omnibus, quae in eo sunt, opinaturessepcrmixtam, inhomincautemperconcupiscenLiamdecipi. (2)Quamconcupiscentiam, quodsacpcinculcanelumcst, nonviLiumsubstantiac bonae, sed malam vult esse substantiam; mala non vacuumfuissc dicit Adam, sed eius minus habllisse multoquc plus lucis.(Augustinc): (I)Next he[i.c., Mani]says lhal the first soul had ema-nalcd from the god of light and had received that fabric of the body,36 Rom. 7:9 ... sed cum vcnissetmandatum peeeatumrcvixit, Vulgn Rom. 7: 12: itaque lex quidem saneta etmandatum sanctum ct iustum ct bonum,Vulg.38 Zclzerprints "ad Patricium", but notes that ms C has "appaticium." The correctformis almost certainly "Patticium"; c[Stein ad loc. This letter is presumably the 50-calledFUlidamrotal tpistle addressed to Pal\icus or Patticius of which Augustine beganto write a refutation (c. epist..fund.). His refutation docsnOt reachas far as the sentencequoted here byJulian, who must have had his own souree for the leiter. According to al-Nadim's list of Mani's letters, the u!terlo Fulluq was indeed "a long one" (Dodge1970,799; for "Fulluq" =Patek/Palik, sec ibid., 773).39 This commentary is perhaps an allusion 10 Titus1: IS: "all things are pure IO/forthe pure."-Kl The translation hereis indebted to Stein adloco(187)LETTERTOME-NOeH: AlITHENTICITYAl-":ODOCTRINE 137so that (the first soul) might rule (the fabric ofthe body) with its ownrein. However, heisnot sayingthis aboutman, but about thegoodsoul, whichparI of and nature of god he thinksis thoroughly mixedin with the whole world and all things, but in man is beguiled throughconcupiscence. (2) Whichconcupiscence, becauseit must beincul-cated often, he wishes to be nOllhc fault of a good substance, but anevil substance; (and) he says that Adam had not been free of evil, buthadless ofit and muchmore of light.luI. (I) Persislit sane invchi in nosct adiungit: "Hi aUlcm, quiconcupiscemiam iSlam contra cvangclicos Cl aposlolicos libras, quosvacuoIcctitalll, bonumallsi sunt dicere, videas", inquit, "sanetoscorum nunc cum filiabus dormissc, nunc cum pluribus ct concubiniset uxoribus miseuisse negotium, nee hoc aposloli videm: Qgae societasluci et lenehris,jideli el irifideli,Christo et &liaP.'1l crrant glomerati nubiloconcupiseentiae, cuius venenoitafruuntur, ut amentiacapti, cumhocgerum, adeoideonecssumputent, quasi ignoremapostolumdixisse: Q!wegerunlur ab eis inletJebris, turtJe est etwm dicere.42(2) r...J Pcrsistitigitur erigiinnos faciensquc aposlropham: ''AgeIU",inquit, "defcn-SOl' eoneupiscemiac, apcno sermone narra fructus et opcra eius. Ecceego contra camnontimeo lucem, quamilia trepidal, quamilia odit.Omnis enim, qui male agi!, odil lucanet nonvenitad tuum, ne manifestenluroperaeius.nVidesneconcupiscentiam maliesse originem, per quammiseracanimaclibidini sClviunt, nonsponte, quia hocest, quodnolenle animo gerimus solum?" (3) [...J(4) [...J44 Sed videamus, quidaliudadiungat: "Deniqueomne peccalumexiracorpus est, quiaaetualeesl; qui llulemjOmicatur, incorpus suum omne enimpcccatum,antequamfiat, noncst elPOSIfactummemoria sola cius operis, nonipse species manet Malum autcm coneupisentiac, quianaturale cst,antequamfiat, cst, cumfit, augetur, post factumet videlur clpcrmancl." (5) [...J, in cademManichci cpistula continetur id cst: "sipcccatumnaturaleIloncst, quarebapitzamur infamcs, quos nihilper scmali egissc constat?"[...J (6) [...]; et hoc ergo ipsum hoc modotUllSpracccptor exscquitur:"Qui his verbismihi imcrrogandi sunt:Si omnc malum actualc esl, antcquam malum quispiamagat, quare41 2 Cor. 6:14-15 quae socictas luciadlenebras quae autem COI1\'cntio ChristiadBelial aut quae pars fideli cum infidele, Vulg.42 Eph. 5: 12 quae enimin occulto liunl ab ipsis turpc est ct dicere,Vlllg.43 John 3:20-21 omnis cnim qui mala agit oditlucem et non venit ad lucell1 ut nonarguantur opcra eius quiautcmfacitvcritatcm venitadlueelnllt manifestelllur ciusopera, Vulg.; c[Eph. 5: 13.'H Vidtsnt... soltlln?, fromthe end of (2), is repeated here.1 Cor. 6:18...omnepeccaturn quodcumquefeccrit homo extracorpus est quialltem fornicatur in corpus suum peccat, Vllig.138 GEOFFREYHARRISONAND JASONBEDUHNaccipit puriricationem aquae, cum Ilullum malum egcrit pCI' sc? Aut5i necdum cgil ct purificandus cst, liquct46cos naluralitcr malae stirpispullulationcm ostendcre, illas ipsos,quos amentianon sinitinMI'gere,nequeqUQ dicunt neque de quibus qffirmant."47[...J (7) Audis, quomodoconvitiatur nobis? Amcntes VOCal nee intcllegemcs, vel quae dicamusvel quae aOirmemus, quimalac stirpis pullulationemncgemus, cumbaptizcmus etiam cos purificameaqua, qui malumnullum egcrin!,idcst parvulos. Pasita sunt ncmpc de cius multa scmcntiis;sednisil'vlcnochfiliamCl Manichcum, qui seChristi apOstolulll nominal,titulus indicarct, Ie omninoSUUlllpolliccrcntur auctorcm. [...J(Julian): (I)Indeedhe(i.e., Mani)continues toinvcighagainst US48and adds: "But these men who have dared 10 call this concupiscencea goodthing, against the evangelic and apostolicbooks whichtheyreadin vain,youmay see", he says, "that theirholymenhave sleptnowwith their daughters, nowhave hadintercoursewith morewomen, both concubines and wives, nor do lhey see this statement oflhe Apostle: What association is there belwten light and darlmess,fiithful andunfiil/ifill, Christ and Belial? (2 Corinthians 6: 14-15). They wander balledupinacloudofconcupiscence, whoscvcnomtheysoenjoythat,siezed by madness,whenthey do this,they thinkit granted by God,asifthey donot knowthat lhe Apostlesaid: What thingsare donetrythemin darkness, it is shamifUl tvento sqy (Ephesians 5.12)." (2)(...)Andso he continues to be aroused against us and, in an apostrophe: "Comenow", he says, "you defender of concupiscence, inplain speechtellof its fruits andworks. Behold, I contrary to it (i.e., concupiscence),donot fear the light atwhichit trembles,whichil hales. For everyonewho does evil hates the light and does1101 come to the light,lest his l1J()rks he mademanifestOohn 3:20-21). Do you see that concupiscence is the origin ofevil, throughwhichwretchedsoulsbecome enslavedtolust, not oftheir own accord, since thisis what we do only with unwilling mind?"(3) [...] (4) [...]BUllet us sec what else he adds: "In short, every sin existsoutside the body sinceit is actual;hut the olle whoftrnicates, sins against hisoum body (cf. I Corinthians 6: 18); for every sin, before it happens, docsnot exist andafterthefact, onlythememory ofitswork, not thething itself, remains. Howevel; the evilof concupiscencc, sinceit isnatural, beforeit happens, doesexist; whenil happens, increases;(and) after the fact, itbOlhis seen and persists." (5)[...1. in the samei Reading liqutl with Stein ad loco against thc fiat primcd by Zelzer (both have mssauthority), the latter of which seems not to make sense.47 I Tim. 1:7volentes esse legis doctores nonintellegenles neque quae loquunturneque de quibus adfirmant, Vulg.; weowethe identificationofthis biblical quotetoStein ad loc.48 That is, "against us goodPelagian, and therefofC orthodox, Christians."LE1TERTOMENOCH: AU'rE-IEl\'TICITYANI) DOCTRINE 139letter ofMani thereisthis: "Ifnaturalsindocs nOI exist, whyarcinfanlS baptized, who by themselves, it is agreed, have done no evil?"[...](6) [...]; andthisvery thinginthis way yourpreceptor asserts:"(Men) whointhese words must be asked by me:If cvery evilis ac-tual, before someone docs evil, why docs he receive the purificationof water, whenhe has done by himself no evil? Or if he has notyetdone (any) and must be pmified, it is clear that they demonstrate thesprouting of the evil shoot naturally, these very ones whom madnessdoes not permit to understand either what they say or about what they maKe asser-tioTls {c[I Timothy1:7)." (7) Do you hear how he assails us? He callsus mad and stupid, in rcgard to whatwe either sayar assert, we whodeny the sprouting of the evil shoot, when we baptize with purifyingwater e\'cn ones who have done no cvil, that is, the very young. To besure, many of his thoughts have been put down (here); but unless thetitleindicated"daughterMenoch"and"Mani", whocallshimselfthc apostle of Christ, they would, without a doubt, claim you as theirauthor.Aug. (I) Finisti tandem, quae de Manichei cpistula, quam tui collegaeFlori orationibus adiutuste invenisse laetaris, contra nos pUlasti essedicenda, ubi cene Manichclls concupiscentiam carnis accusat,[...J(Augustine): (I) Finally you have finished with whatever you thoughtcould be said against us from the letter of ivlani, which you, aided bytheprayers'19 ofyour colleague, Florus, rcjoicetohavcdiscovered,wherc certainly Mani rebukcs the concupiscence of the flesh...ilLCommenlary(165) Thisexplains Julian'sreasonforincludingtheLetter to i\Jlenoclt inhis polemic: there is no difference belween Traducians and Manichees,i.e., Traducians (those who believe the child's soul is engendered inlheparents, andso inthepossibility oftransmilling originalsin) archcr-elics. ItisthePclagians whoareorthodoxChristians. "Traducianismdrewattentioninthejlhc., especiallyintheWesl, asa result of lhecontroversy with Pelagian ismover original sin anditstransmissionineverydescendant ofAdam. For the Pelagians(particularly JulianofEclanum), admitting thetransmission of originalsininvolvedaccept-ingthethesis ofthetransmissionofthesoul, againsl theestablishedChristian doctnne of creationism. Those whobelievedinoriginalsin49 Asneering reference to "oratu tuo" ofOp. imp. 166.140 GEOFFREYHARRISONAND JASONBEDUHNwere called, according to Augustine(Op. imp. c. /ul. 1,6), Lraducillni."so(166) The passivelanguage here seems suspiciously vague, asi{Julianwishes to conceal something. GeraldBonner says: "h was thePelagianbishop Florus who, at Constalllinoplc, foundthe copy of Mani'sLetlertoMenQch. .."sl N. Cipriani andI. Volpi, intheireditionofOp. imp.say: "Floro era un altra dci 18 vescovi, che si schicrarono dalla panedi Pelagia. Dcposto dallaserle, andoincsilioa Constantinopoli, dadovemando aGiuliano, ospitc di Tearlero aMopsucstia inCilicia,il libroII del De nuptiiset cone., insiemeal C. duasep. Peiag. caunaleHera manichca, invitandolo a scrivcrc contro Ag. nsuo nome ricorrcnella letterache Nestorioinvioal papaCelestino, per perorarclacausa deipclagiani (PL 48, The ICller of Ncstorius was trans-lated into LatinbyMarius MercalOr. But Juliandoes not saythatFlorus foundtheleller nor eventhat Florus himselfsenl it toJulian.Someoneelse(unnamed)foundil. InOlherwords, FlorushadhelpinConstantinople. OnewouldverymuchliketoknowmoreabouthowFlorus obtained theleller and especially whether he was assistedby apersonorpersons sympathetictohiscause. Was Theodore ofMopsuestiainvolved? Perhaps nolo"In423 Julian... sought refugewithTheodore of Mopsuestia, mistakenly supposing thal hewouldfindhimsympathetic1Othe Pelagiancause. Wehavenoreasontosupposethat hewas treatedwithanythingbut courtesyandkind-nessby Theodorebut his admirationforthelearnedbishop was notreciprocated, andMariusMercator, whohadnogreat lovefor ei-ther, recordsthat, after Julian's departurefor Constantinople1O tryhisluckthere, theCilicianbishopwaspersuadedbyhis colleaguesto concur inthe decisionof local synod which anathcmatisedJulianand his It is not clear why Rees wishes 1OdistanceThcodore so far fromJulian; and even he admits thatJulianremainedwithor near Theodorc for a good long lime: ':Julian replies[to Augustine] withhisToFlorus... , writlcnin Ciliciawhileheisunderlhe50 VGrossi,EllgclojKdm if the,,:.arty ChristiallChuTch, s.v. "Traduciallism." "Some Remarks onLetters 4. and 6",ill Us kUm d/ Saiat Augustin dkoulIn"le5 par]ohamw [h'ljak. CommunuatiOIiS prismties au colloqU/des 20 el21 Stplmlbre 1982 (paris: Etudest\ugustiniennes, 1983), 155-164.S;lnl' Agosrino, Pnlm,irarnll r.i"/iann II, np,ra Inrnmpiuta. NlIOV;l BihliorrraAgosliniana-Operc di Sam' Agostino, ParteI: Libri-Opere polcmiche,v. 19, Roma:Cillll NuovaEdilricc, 1993),5, note 2.B.R. Rccs, Ftlagim:A Reluctant Htf/tU, Woodbridgc/\Volrcboro: Hoydell Press, 1988,101.LEn'ERTOMf.J....OCH: AlJnlENTICITYANDDOCTRINE 14\protection of Theodore of Mopsuestia."5'!IfJulian didnOt have goodreasontoexpect asympatheticreceptionfromTheodore, whydidhego10himinlhefirst place?Why, if his expectationwas wrong,was heencouragedlOstaywithTheodoretheconsiderableperiodof timeit wouldhavetakentowritealengthywork against Augus-tine?Would 'Theodore and/or other easterntheologians, interestedin defending a "free will"position, have beenso disinclinedto assistJulian as Rees implied above? It seems much more likely thatTheodore and/or hisfriendshelpedJ ulianand thaI one of their as-sociatesinConstantinopleactedasresearchassistant toFlorus. Ei-ther this person (or persons) didnot wish1O be named, orJulian wasbeing discreet. Of course, this has nobearing ontheauthenticity oftheLeuer.Thefinal clausesof thesentencecOlllinuctheargument in 165above: not only are Traducians no different fromManichees, Augus-tinehimself aClUallygot his ideas fromMani's letter (theimplica-tionsurelybeingthat Augustine isstill aManicheeor, at theveryleast, his theologyof original sin is, for all intents and purposes,Manichaeanand thus heretical). It is 1Othisspecificslur (lhat heborrowedfromthe Lefler) that Augustine replies in I 72( I); seebe-low.(172) This form of address, imitating Paul,55is well attested for ].,llani'sepistles, andevenfor the opening of his Gospel. l\llani invariablyin-troduces himself as "an apostle ofJesus Chrisl" in all letter fragmentsthat have been preserved.56The Fundamental Epistle begins:"Manichaeus, apostle ofJesus Christ, by theprovidence of CodtheFather" (Augustine, C. epist.fund. 6). Emphasis on"thetrue God"isfoundalso inthe opening of Mani'sGospel. Hisblessing onMenochis not exactlythesameas that employed, e.g., in the FlindamentaL~ Ibid., 142.~ Stein (199B, 12-13) adduces 2 CorinthiansI: 1-2, which reilds:"Paul, an apostleof Christ Jesus... Grace 10 you and peace fromGod our Father..."~ TheThird Wier 10 Sisinllios, preserved among the Coptic finds of i\ledineti\ladi,opens: "r\'lanichaios, the apostle ofJesus Christ, andKOlLstaios, the [... ], and all of theother brothers withme, to Sisinnios" (C.Schmidt and H.JPolotsky, 1-.111 Manillund illAgJpterl. Berlin: Verlagdel' Akademie del' \Visscllschaften, 1933, 23). The 1.Lller /(J Maru/l/lJcontainedinAlia Arthtlai.5 similarly bq,tins: "Manichaios, anapostle of Jesus Christandall thesaintswithme, andthevirgins, toMarcellusmybelovedson"(S. D. F.Salmond, '\>\rchclaus, theDisputationwithManes", inA. Roberts andJDonaldson,cds., The Anlt-Niur.e Fathers, vol. 6. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1987, IBI).142 GEOFFREYIIARRISONAND JASONBEDUHI"Epistle,H or the ulln to Marullus,58 but we have to assume some varia-tionhere.Julianhasomittedsomeponionof theopeningbenedictionof lener, perhapsfor the sake of succinctness, but possibly alsoto eliminate languagetOO distinctively which would workagainst Julian'sintentiontohavesoundas muchas possiblelike Augustine. The missing masculine plural antecedent of quos couldhavebeensomeset of Manichaeandeities or salvational forces, orperhapstheElcel.The rest of 172 contains good, solid Manichaean language.Figmentumis probablya translationof schema, whichis usedin thissense of bodily form or appearance throughout the Greek and CopticManichaica. The referenceto "every body andnavor"invokes someof thewell-knownManichaeanpentads; thereare five bodilysub-stances, five categories of animal life, and five "navors" in Manichaean"Listcnwisscnschaft".s9 Theauthor quotes John3:6 (inaformthatdiffers slightly fromtheVulgate). This biblical passageis fundamen-tal toManichaeandualism. It is citedbyFortunatus inhisdebatewith Augustine inrefutation of the significance of Romans I: 1-4: whatJesus was "accordingto the flesh" has no positive value for theManichaean(C. FOTtunalum19). Faustus uses thesame passagetodefend the r-.hnichaean position that only the spiritual humanis cre-ated by God,not the physical one (G. Faustum 24). Compare EphremSyrus, Hypotius 82.22-31: "the sons of Darkness are corporeal becausethebody also... as they allege, (but) thenature of the sons of Light is"May the peace of the invisible Cod, and the knowledge of the tnllh, be with theholyandbelovedbrethrenwhobothbelievcandalsoyieldobediencetothedivineprecepts. Mayalsothe right hand of light protect youanddeliveryoufromevcryhostile a>sault, and fromthe snares of the world" (c. (pis/.fiJl/d. 13).SlI "Crace, mercy, and peace be with youfromCod theFather, andform our lordjesus Christ; andmay the right hand oflight preserve yousafe fromthe presentevilworld, and from its Cillamilies, and from the snares of the wicked one" (Salmond1987,181).$ "Five storehouses have arisen since the beginning inthe land of darkness. Therive clements poured out of them. Also fromthe rive elements were fashionedthe fivetrttS. AgainfromthefivetrttSwen: fashK>Iledtherivegeneraor en:aturesineach\\"r1d, maleandfemale.Andthelive worldsthemselvC5haverive king.; therein, andrive spirits, [rive] bodies, rive (lastes]..." LpJw!JJjqn 6, 30.17-23 (I. Gardner, TIu Krplw/Qwof theTraMr, Lcidcn: E. J. Brill, 1995, 34). Therivetastes orna\ors aredetailedinKrpluJ/lJilRI33: sally,sour, pungelll, sweet., andbiuer, c[M 840b, 183, M100 (allcollected inWB Henning, "'Two Texts", Bt.:fILtin of the &11001 ofOrimtaf tl!U1 AJriam SiuJin 12 l1947] 46, 55).LEITER TOMENOCH: AUrl-IENTICITYANDDOCTRINE 143spiritual, as they say, for thisLiglH alsois consubstantial withthem.,,60(I 72) Aug.( I):Against whatwetaketobetheopiniocommunis onthispassage, Augustine docs1/ot claim lhat theLeuer is a forgery; he merelyassertsthat hehasneverseenit before. Hissolepurposeill sayingwhal hedoes is implicitly LOdcnytheaccusationof Julian in Op.imp. 166: lhal hederivedhis doctrinefromMani'sletter. WhileAu-gustinemaynot havebeenanexpert onManichaeanliterature, hemust have been familiar with much that hadbeen translated inLOLatin. Thusthat hefinds noreasontosuspect lhelelter'sgenuine-ness and, indeed, feelscompelledtodevote several pages LO apointbypoint refutalionof Julian'sclaims, maybeof somesigniricancetothe questionof authenticity.(174)Apparently continuing directly onthepreviousfi'agment, thisponion of the letter contains familiar Manichaean expressions of thedualityinherent inthehumanorganism.51Steinquestionswhethertheclauseabout women("as inthesnare or thedevil throughtheconcupiscence of awoman") is actually fromtheLetterLo A1moch, orindeedwhetherit isanauthentic part of lheOp. imp. atal1.62(175) Mani invokes the well attested Manichaean concept of the "rivegates" of the senses, onc of theprincipal avenuesthroughwhich ex-lernal evil bolsters thepower of theinternal evil inherent in thehu-manbody. The author quotes I Timothy 6:10 with one crucial vari-ationfromthe Vulgate: cOflcupiscenlia instead of theVulgate's cupiditas.Neither renderingis particularlyclose LOtheGreekphilarguria. Onthe languageof "roots" compare EphremSyrus, flypalius86.5-13:'Trhecase) isnot astheapostatesrelate, namely, that 'thebodyisinherentlysinful, derivedfromtheevil nature', nor is thesoul, asthey say, 'derivedfromachasteroOl.'''63Galatians 5: 17is quoledin a formthat owes little or nothing to theVulgate, and that departs as well from the Greek. Rather than "lustingGO John C. Reeves, "Maniehaeal1 Citations from the ProSt Rifuwtionsof Ephrem", inp. Mirccki and]. BeDuhn, EmtrgingfiomDarkntss: SluditJinI"t Rtcoutry 4' JIll/nickl/tl/nSourm, Lciden:E.j. Brill, 1997,253-254.Gl SecJ. BcDuhn, "The Metabolism of Salvation: l\'!anichaeanConcepts ofHu-manPhysiology", in this volume, andJ. BeDuhn, ThJI II/nickl/tllnBody inDi.Jciplint andRilual, Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniversityPress, 2000.62 Stein1998,52.65.63 Reeves199i, 251.144 GEOFFREYHARRISONAL'\JD JASONBEDUHNtowards/against" thespirit, theflesh is saidsimplyto"oppose" thespirit, and "lust" (concupiscentia) is moved from the biblical passage tothe inlerprClalion: neshis the "daughter" of Imt,jllsi a.'\ spirit isinter-preted here to be the "son" of soul. In other words, the human bodyisthe product of evil (ohen personified in Manichaeismas thearchdemoness AdHyle1, while the human spirit is a portion of the Liv-ing Soul, the all-pervasive substance of good.ITim. 6: I0 andGal. 5: I 7 arcbrought togetherinavery similartopical context tothatof theLettertoMenochinthedebatebetweenAugustine andFortunatus recordedintheC. Forlunatum. Theparal-lel is instructive bothfor thecommonideologyof the"root of allevils"whichunderliesthetwopassages and forthe distinct applica-tionof that ideologybythetwoManichaeanstotheunderstandingofI Timothy6: 10. Augustinequotes I Timothy 6: I0 first, readingwiththe standardLatintranslationscu/Jidilas, "avarice", ratherthantheconctl./Jiscenlia of theLetter to Menoeh (c.Forlunatum 21). Fortunatusadheresto Augustine'susagethroughout, and docs not challenge thetranslation. Fortunatusreplies;Wesaythis, that thesoul is compelledbycotHrarynaturetotrans-gress, for' whichtransgressionyoumaintainthere isnoroot savetheevil that dwells inus; for it iscertainthat apanfromourbodiesevilthingsdwell inthe wholeworld. For not those thingsalone that wehave inaliI' bodiesdwell inthewholeworldandareknownbytheirnames as good; an evil root also inheres. For you said that this avaricethat dwellsinour bodyistheroot of all evils; sincetherefore (by yourargt-lment) thereis nodesireof evil outsideof our bodies, fromthatsourcc (alone) contrary nature dwells in the whole world. For the Apostledcsignatcdthat, namelyavarice, astherootof evils." But not inonemanneris avarice... understood, as if of that whichdwells in our bod-ies alone; for it is certain that this evil which dwells inus descends froman evil author and that thisroot asyOLlcall itis a small portion of evil,so that it is not theroot itself, but is a small ponion of evil, of that evilwhichdwells everywhere(G. For/una/um21).64After explaining that the evil naturewithinusisresponsiblefor sin,andthat thehuman soul only has agency andresponsibility withthecoming ofJesus as savior, Fortunatuscontinues:6+ All quotations fromtheC. F(J1tullatum arc takenfromP Scharr, A Stua U"brary rifthe ./I'icme Ilnd Post-Nicrne Fathm c!f the Christiall Church, vol. 4-, 109-124.LEITERTOMENOCH: AtJrHENTICITYANDDOCTRINE 145Forit issaidbytheApostlethat, 'Themindof thefleshis hostiletoCod; it is not subject tothe lawof Cod, nor can it be' (Rom. 8:7).Thereforeit isevidenl fromthesethingsthat thegoodsoul seemstosinnot voluntarily, but by the doing of that whichis not subject tothelaw of Cod. For it likewise follows that, 'The fleshlusts against the spiritandthespirit against the flesh, so that youmay not dothethings thatyouwill'(Gal. 5: 17)' (C. For/una/um21).HeconcludesbyquotingRomans 7:23-25. Thefact that AugustinecitesI Timothy 6: 10 according to the standardLatin translations, andso reads cupidilas, may explain why I;ortunatus disputes the surface mean-ing of the verse. He argues that cupidilas is not really the roOI of aLi evils,because it is not eoneupiscenliawhich is lhe rOOl of all evils in theManichaean tradition, as inlhe uttertoMenoell, inwhichthewordeoncupiseenlia is intruded into1 Timothy 6: I 0 ilself (but removed, inter-estingly, fromGal. 5: 17). Fonumllus's position is exactlythatof theutter 10 Menoeh: the evil in people is secondary or derivative (lhe "daugh-ter") of a more basic and pervasive evilinthe cosmos.(176)Julian implies that this seclion follows immediately on the preced-ingone. WhileChristians ingcnnal affirmedGod'screationof thehuman body, there was a wide spectrum of attitudes lowards the body'sinherent goodness. Averyascetic, anti-bodyviewprevailedinmanyquaners, perhapsmOst pervasivelyineasternSyria.AnOtable excep-tion in lhis environment were the Bardaisanitcs, who maintained a pro-body posilion: "Godinhis goodness will(ed) to creatcman.,,6:'Because he (man)is created after the image of Cod, thereforeis it givenunto him, out of goodness, that these things should serve him for awhile.Andit is also givenhimtoleadhis lifeaccording tohis ownfreewill,andto doall heis ableto do, if hewill, ornot to doit, if he will nOI,justifyinghimself or becoming guilty.66Thereasoning of thepositioninthe Leiter toMenoehisparalleledbyFaustus, C. Faustum24, wherealso John3:6is quotedinsupponofasharpdistinctionbetweenbody andsoul. Fauslussays:Inthehumiliating process of ordinary generationwespring fromtheheatof animal passion ... [I]f it is whenwearc fashionedinthewomb6 ~ H.J. \.'11.Drij"crs,The IJookflj thf /AW5 of uJllntritJ, Asscn: Van Corcum, 1965, II.66 Drijvcrs1965, 13.146 GEOFFREYHARRISONAND JASONBEDUHNthat God formsus after his ownimage, whichisthe common belief ofGentilesand Jews, andwhichis also your belief, thenGodmakes theolel man pronu('("shyffi(';IJlS of sf'llSlIal p:lssinn, whichdoC'snOIseem suitable tohis divine namre... [TJhc birth by whichwe arc mademaleandfemale, Greeksand Jews, Scythiansand Barbarians is notthebirthinwhichGodeffectstheformationof man... It is plainthateverywhere he[i.e. Paul]speaks of the second or spiritual birth as thatinwhichwearcmadebyGod, asdistinct fromthe indecency of thefirst birth.(177) This section appears to follow immediately on the preceding one.The authorcOlllinucs touscpassages from John3 (or thatportionofthe DialtSSarOIl) and Paul's lcttcr to thc Galatians, but begins a transitioninto hcavy use ofRomans. The allusion toJohn3:20is connated with3:21, or evenwithEph. 5: 13. Thebrief quotations of Rom. 9: 16 andGal. 5: 19agrcewiththe VulgatcandtheGreek, andRom. 7:8hassimply been adjustcdtoitsuscintheletter,but Gal. 5:22 varies moresignificantly by the loss of "love" and the reversal of and "peace."InquotingRomans7: 19, the authorhas connatedthe versewithRo-mans7: 15 which contributes the exllOrreo (from Greek Iltcr&; the Vulgateat 7: 15 has Odl) and with7:20 which contributcs operor(as7:20 rcads intheVulgate).If the leller isauthentictheninits biblical exegesisthis passagewouldprovideaveryimportant contributiontoour understandingof the exact nuancesof Mani'steachingonthe relationof soul tosininthebody. Theinherent duality of humanbehavior, orintheexpression of Augustinethe "two souls" of thehumanbeing accord-ingtotheManichaeanview, isbrought forwardvividlyinthis panof theLetter to Menoch.The absolutedividebetweenattributing goodtoone'struenature andevil tosome"other"withinthebodyistheclassic Manichaeanposition. Thephrases about goodbeing "bitter"toevil finds averyclose parallel in a ManichaeanworkcitedbyEphrcm.Hear also another objection against them fromtheir writing(s). (fDark-nesspassionately lustedfor Light because (Light)pleasedit, howcanthey state that it (i.c., Light)is its adversary and eventually its torrnen-tor?And(iQLight hasa'nature' that isdesirableandbeautiful toDarkness, howis there produced fromthat pleasant 'nature' that whichisbitter for Darkness?'(EphremSyrlls, Hypatius 2.l6fT.).6767 Rel;vcs1997,227.LETrER TOMENOCH: AlITHENTICITYAJ'iODOCTRL'iE 147The twonatures are totally alienandinimical to onc anothcl; andinsome sense "poison" one another.(180) Inthis sectionoftheOp. imll.Julianrecapsby running togetherthree separate passages from theLeller to iHenoeli already quoted in174,175, and177respectively.(183)Julian againrecapshispresentationby requoting apassagethatwas previously divided betweenOp. imp. 176 and177.(l86) Theway Julianintroducesthispassagcmayimplythat someportionhasbeenomitted, andthat hehas jumpedtoanother partof theleHer. Ontheother hand, thelast biblical quotationof thepreviously quotcd section (177) was Rom. 7:8, and this section openswith an allusion to Rom. 7:9 and proceeds immediately to Rom. 7: I I12. Ineithercase, thissectionprovidesthemost difficult andvocativebiblicalexegesis of theLeller toMet/oell. Forthat reason, wethoughtit worthwhile to include the pertinent portion of Augustine'sresponseto Julian, becausethereappearstobeadisagreement tweenthetwo Christians over theinterpretation of theletter at thispoint.68Romans7 providesthebasetext, inthewords"theorder came,sin revived" (Rom. 7:9), "seduced" (Rom. 7:11), and "the law indeedisholy... just andgood"(Rom. 7: 12), uponwhichtheauthorbuildsanarrative. Hisinterpretationappliesthesewordsto"thefirst soulwhich flowedfromthc God of light", andhe goes onto say that thatfirst soul"received that fabric of the body so thatit might ruleit withitsownreins."NowthissoundsveryCatholic, andvery Augustin-ian, about theunfaltencharacterof Adam, whowas supposedtocontrol his body throughreason, right downto the reproductive act.It wouldbe very unexpected forMani to speak of Adam as "Ihe firstsoul" (whichwouldnormally beappliedtothePrimal Manandhisfive"limbs"). Evenif he were speaking of Adam, he wouldnever beableto countenancethepositive viewthat Adam's soul was givcnabody withtheintention of ruling and governingit. Onthe contrary,the body, createdbytheforcesof evil, wassupposedtoruleanddominate Adam's soul.Inthe setting of Manichaean doctrine, however, the first soul thaireceives the fabric of thebodyis not Adam but the Primal Man, who68 Stein1998, also discusses (his connict of intcrpn:tation.148 GEOFFREYHARRISONA..... "O JASONBEDUHN"puts on"thefiveclements(ether, air, light, water, andfire) as his"limbs"to go into combat against evil.59InManichaeananlhropol.ogy, fOUf of thefiveelements constitutethepositiveconsulUCIlUi ofthehumanbody, whichisnot, asmight beassumed fromthispar-tial discussion,wholly evil. But these good clements aremixedwithevil elementsanddominatedbythelancr in the humanbodybymeans of "the spirit of thebody"which governsit.UsingPaul'slanguagefromRomans7, theauthor setsforththechainof eventsintheprimordialcombat betweenthe Primal Manandtheforces of evil. ThePrimal Manwas ordered intobattle andwas successful at first.70BUI evil regrouped withits own "limbs" andoverwhelmedPrimal Man, strippingofT hisowngood"limbs"andblending them withhis own.71From this catastrophe, the rest of worldhistolY unfolds. The author continues quoting fromthe seventh chap-ter of Paul's Leuer tothe Romans, andverse 12isgivenawholenew{wist byits employmcnt here. InthcUltutoA'ftnoch the"law"and"order"isGod'scommandwhichsenl Primal Maninto disas-trouscombat withevil. In hisdebate with Fortunatus, Augustineobjectedthatthis God appearsto doomhis ownby this command.The author of theIctlerusesPaul todefendGod's actions. Hisuseof theverse implies thatthose who are (or that whichis) "holy" and"just andgood"will succcssfullypass throughworldhistorytore-turnto the land of light. For them, it willturn out well in the end. Itis only atragedy forthosewho fail tonegotiatethetrials andtemp-tationsof this world. FonunatushandJes thisissuesimilarlyin hisdcbatcwithAugustine. Whenthelaltcr askedhow Cod couldissuesuchanorder, Fonunatusreplies:69 See al-Nadim (Dodge1970, 779).10 EphremSyrusSo't)'S that "thePrimordialMancasthis fivebrightones intothemouth of the sons of darkness in order that, as a hunter, he might catch them with his[net]"(C. W. S. S. Ephraim's RdUlotioru of Mani, A/tlrcion and &rdaisan,London:andNOrgaIC, 1912, vol. I, lxxix). Thisis\'Cry similar to me Slate--ment made in !.he ullLr Ie MtnOth that "the first soul which nowed from the God of lightrecei\w that fabric of Ihe body() Ihal it might ruleil with its own reins."71 "'rnereuponIhePrimordial Devilrepaired to hisfi\'Cprinciples, which arcthesmoke, l1:une, pe5tilential wind, and douds, arming himiClf wim them andmaking them a protection forh.im. Upon his coming inlO contact with the PrimordialMan, theyjoined in bailie for a long time. The Primordial mastertti the Primordial Man andtook a swallow fromhis light, whichh.e surrounded withhis principlesand ingredients" (ibKl., xliv),LETTERTOMENOCH: AtJrHENTICITYANDDOCTRINE 149Just as also theLord saidtohis disciples: 'Behold, I send you as sheepinthemidst of wolves' (Ml. 10:16). Henceitmustbeknownthatnotwithhostile intent did our saviOI' sendfOIthhis lambs, thatis his disci-pies, intothemidst of wolves... Hencealsomay appeartheantiquityof our times... that before thefoundationof theworldsouls were sentin thiswayagainst thecontrarynaturethat, subjectingthesamebytheir passion, victorymightberestoredtoGod(G. FQrtunatum22).Fortunatushadset forthanevenstronger answerthepreviousdaybyusingtheexampleofJesus's fatal missioninobedience LOGod(C. Forlunalum7-8).Julian inserts here a fragment fromanother leuer altributedtoMani, toa certainPatricius, or morelikelyPauicius.72Itisnotalto-gether clear thattheadditional citationis pertinent, asthemeaningof the quotationremains ambiguous without more context. We cannottrust that Julianhasafull graspof thesubject underdiscussioninthisportion of theLettertoMenoch, andAugustinecorreelShimtoacertain degree. Augustine explains that the "first soul"is not the soulof Adam, but themore comprehensive world soul or Living Soul thatpervadesall things. Theprimordial narrativetheauthor of thelet-ter constructs around Romans7:9-12precedes themisadventures ofAdam. Havingmade that point, Augustine commentsonthesen-tence fromthe Letter to Pallicius by confirming that Mani believed thatAdam was "betler thanwhat followed"becausemore lightwas con-centratedinhimbeforeit begantobesubdividedinhumanrepro-duction.Stein grants that Augustinemakes the distinctionbetween the "firstsoul"andthe"firstman"inhisinterpretation of this sectionof theleuer,but then asks what the words of the lener in-and-of-themsclvesmean.73That is, is the LeUer toA1enochtalkingabout Adamor thePrimal Man?Steintakes thedemonstrativepronounintheexpres-sion"thaifabricof thebody" 10showconclusivelythat thehumanbody, and so Adam, isthe actual topic of discussionhere.74Hethendevelops a somewhat elaborate argumentto explain howthe expres-sion "first soul",whichproperly belongs tothePrimal Man,hashere72 See text and tran$lmion of this pa:uagc above, Op. imp. 106, withnote.Althoughthere was more than one person named Panik or Pattcg in Mani's inllercirclc, the mostprominent or these was l\'!ani's own f:lIhcl'.73 Stein1998,75.74 Ibid., 75-76.150 GEOFFREYI-IARRISONAND JASONBEDUHNbeen transferred toAdam'ssoul. But this wholeavenueof discus-sionseems LOustobeadeadend.Juliansimplyhas misunderstoodthe LettertoMenochinhis driveLOreadit consistently inlinewithAugustine'sthought. Thelancr'sobsessionwiththeFall andOriginal Sin occupiesthevery cenler ofhis conflict withJulian, and hein turnlets the shadow of those themescover the sense of this passage of thetCllcr. Augustine corrects] lilian'smisinterpretation, but Stein apparently is unpcrsuadcd. Nevertheless,theauthorspeaks of "thatfabric", i.e., therawmaterial of evil (inthecarliest stageof canOiet) orof mixedquality(ataslightlylalcrphaseof cosmogony), andnotof "thatbody"specilically of Adam.The Manichaeanmythassertsthat theintention of the original com-bat wasfor Primal Manandhis limbs(i.e., the"first soul")totakecontrol of thesubstance of evil in someway. The apparentdefeat ofthegoodsoul inthat initial combat ismerelyastratcgemtoinjectthesoul intoevil andultimatelytoundermineit. In otherwords, it"receivedthat fabric of thebody sothatit (i.e., thesoul)mightruleit (i.c., thefabric)withits ownreins." As a countermeasure, evilmoldsthe"fabric" intothebody of Adam. At thislaterstage of historyitcouldnever besaidbya Maniehacanthat thesoul "receivedthatfabricof thebody so thatit (i.e.,thesoul)mightrule it (i.e., thefab-ric)withits ownreins",sincethepurpose of manufacturingthehu-manbodyinManichaeanmythisprcciselytheopposite, that is, tocontrol thesoul bymeansof the body. Thisvcrycomplexdramawill be betterunderstoodonccasystematic studyis made of all thecosmogonical andanthropogonical narrativesofthe Manichaeantradition. Atthis point of research, however, weknow enough aboutthe repealedreversalsof fortune inthcstorytorecognizethat theauthor of the Letter to Menochhas, intypicalManichaeanfashion, pro-jectedthe Fall backintoprimordial, cosmichistory. His interest isinthetragedy of thePrimal Man,nottheoriginal sin of Adam. Thefact that Julianhasmisunderstoodandmisappliedtheleller at thispoint is onemoredecisivepiece of evidence againstthetheory thattheletter isapro-Pelagianforgery.(187) This longest extract fromtheletter may follow immediately onthepreceding section, butisitself probablynotacontinuouswhole.Thereappears tobe adelinitcbreakbetweensubsection4and5,where Julian indicates that he isquotingfromanotherpart of theletter. The author againdevelops his arbrument onthe basis of PaulineLETrERTOMENOCH: AUTHENTICITYANDDOCTRINE 151passages. 2Corinthians6: 1415hasbeenfreelyreworked: thefirstclauseis retainedintact, but the clements fromthe second and thirdclauseshavebeenextractedandsimplyplacedinserieswith"lightand darkness", ininverted order. Ephesians 5:12 alsois quotedinaformthat varies fromthenorm, with"lilethings doneindarkness"substituted for"the things done in secreL" The variationsinboth ofthesescripturalquotationssuggest that theauthor is quotingfrommemory. The transformation of a negative "secret"to "darkness"isquitcnatural inaManichaeanmilieu. John3:20is quotedina differcnt formherethanin 177, closer totheVulgate, but againim-portinganelement ("bemademanifest" inplaceof 3:20's"bercproved")fromeither John3:21orEph. 5: 13. ICor. 6: 18is abbreviated, but otherwiscidentical tothe VulgateandtheGreek. Theauthor's satiric allusionto I Tim. 1:7is as closeto the Greek astheVulgate, butchoosesdicunl inplaceof the VulgalC'sloquulllur. Thegenericreferenceto"evangelic andapostolicbooks"withoutspeci.fying any gospel by name supports an attribution to Mani, since ManiwasprobablyusingtheDialessaron (andthe corpus of Paul'slelters).The accusations of incest andpolygamy sound gratuitous, and thispassage seems 'Iuite in the context of either a late WesternManicheanpseudepigraphumorapro Pelagianforgery. Althoughonecouldspeak of Pelagiansas"menwhohavedaredtocall thatconcupiscencea goodthing", theaccusationof incest wouldmakenosensehere, all the more if wesupposedtheletter tobeaproPelagianforgery(Alfaric'ssupposition) simplyintendedtoexposeAugustine's virulent phobia towards sexuality. A pro Pelagian forgerwould want a passage condemning commonmonogamous marriage,not marital practices unacceptableto much of theRomanworld. Towhom, then, couldthischargeapply? In the Romanmilieu, suchincest was astereotypical attributc of thePersians. Fromthe word-ing of thc passage, these would bePersian Christians who maintainedthc culture's distinctiveform of incestuous marriage even after theirexposuretothe"evangelicandapostolicbooks." WeretheresuchChristiansat thetimeof Mani?Or is thechargeof inccstandpo-lygamynothing morethantypical intcrreligiouspolcmic?Bardaisan(154-223 C.E.) intheBook ciftheLaWJ qfCountrieJ insiststhat theChristians of Persiadidnot conformtothispractice: "forbehold, weall, whereverwemaybc, arccalledChristians aftertheone name of the Messiah... and they who live inParthia do not man)'two women... and they who live inPersia donot man)'their daugh152 GEOFFREYHARRISONAND JASONBEDUHNtel's" (BLe XX). 7.lBut whenwe look into the BLC,we discover a pe-culiar feature of Bardaisan's dissertation. Thetwo marriagepracticescriticized by l'vlani intheLencr to Menoeh areprecisely thetwo as-sociated withIranianpeoplesintheBLG:Thenthe Persians have made themselves laws totake their sisters,daughters and granddaughterstowife; some go even further and taketheir ownmothertowife.76AmongtheParthiansonemantakesmany wivesandtheyall submitthemselvesinchastitytohiscommand, becauseof theJawobtaininginthat COLlnlry.17Fate... does not prevent lhe Persians frommarryingtheir daughtersand sisters... theParthians frommarrying many wives... But, as I havealreadysaid, ineachcountryandeachnationpeoplelisethelibertybelongingtotheirnatureastheyplease.78Inlight of thesepassages, thecomment of theletter begins tolooklikeapolemic against Bardaisanusingthelatter'sownpresentalionagainst him. Agreeing withBardaisanlhat suchmaritalpractices arewrong, the author poinls out lhal people areslilldrivenlO dolhem,even-ilis allegcd-Bardaisan's exceptionalclass ofChristians.An-olherpassagefromtheBLC isrelevant here. Bardaisansays,For desireis a different thing fromlove, and friendship something elsethan joining together with evilintent. We ought to realise without dif-ficliltythat falseloveis called lust and that evenif it gives a temporarypeace, thereis a world of difference betweenthat and true love, whosepeacelaststill theend of days, sufferingneithertroublenorloss.79Mani, andtheaUlhor of the Lettertoi\1enoch, wouldarguelhat it ISpreciselylust whichleadstolhesemarriagepraclices, andthal lhisIUSl iswhat BardaisanconsiderslObe"natural."Itis man's natural constitution to be born, grow up, become adult, pro-create childrenand grow old... Thesethingstakeplaceineachman'slife, because they areinherent natural conditions... For this is the work1 ~ Drij\'crs1965, 61 .16 Drijvcrs1965,43-44.11 Drij\'crs1965, 49.1S Drij\'crs1965,53.19 Drijvcrs1965, 2 J.LETTERTOMENOCH: AlrrJIENTICln'Al.... DDOCTRINE 153of Nature, whichdoes, createsandproduceseverything asit isor-dained.80Thebody. then, isledbyitsnatural constitution, whilethesoul suf-fers and receives impressions together withit. But the bodyis not con-strainedby thisFatenorisit helpedby ir...81Bardaisangoesontogivethe exampleof thenatural ages of child-bearing asdeterminedbynature, regardless of Fate.Theunionof maleandfemalebelongstothefieldof nature, asalsolhe satisfaction of both parties. But fromFate come disgust and breakingthecommunity of marriage, andall impurityandimmorality peoplecommit because of lheir passions, when they have intercourse together.Having childrenbelongstothedomainof nature. BUI throughFatethechildrenarcsometimesdeformed, theysometimes miscalTYandsometimes dieprematurely.82Thisportionof the LettertoMenoc/t goeson todistinguishbetween"actual"sinand"natural"sin, andthis discussion isanimportantcontributionto our understanding of Manichaeismif Menoehprovestobeauthentic. Augustine works withaverysimilar two-foldcat-egorizationinhisearlier anti-Pelagiantracts. Thesamesortof dis-tinctionis present already inthe BardaisanitcBook qfthe Laws qf Coun-tries. Is theresome Platonic, Aristotelian, orStoiccategorylurkingbehindthis distinction? Perhaps Julian is right tosuspect that Au-gustine is ultimatelydependent on the Manichaeansfor this. Theauthorofthe IcHer distinguishes between sinful deeds andsinfuldrives/desires. His dismissal of the fanner isinline withtheideathatthesoul doesnOI actually commit sin, andis not reallyresponsiblefor it. FortheManichacans, sinsimplyburstsOut, andwhat's doneisdone. But thememorylingerson, it issaidhere, andthat is theonlycontinuedcxistcnceofthe sin which is "actually" past. Butconcupiscenceisinherent inthebody, andsowhenoneyieldstoitone"sins against hisownbody"(theauthoris quotingICor. 6: 18,andturningit inauniquelyManichaeanway). Augustineusesthiscategory in distinctionfromoriginal sin, or lheinherited guill, or theinherent concupiscence that anindividualhas from original sin. Theindividual does notnecessarilyindulge thai lust,but if hedoes, then00 Drijvers1965,23.81 Drijvcrs1965,33.HZ Drijvers1965, 35.154 GEOFFREYHARRISONAND JASONBEDU!-INhe adds to original sin the "actual" sin of his deeds. The passage fromtheLeuer to A1enochis similar, but seems to have apoint, distinct fromAugustine's, about thetransience of actualsin, andthememQry astheonly abidingplace of past sin. This doesnot appeartobe aformu-lation characteristic of Augustine. Theauthor'sopponemsseemtoholdthat all sinis "actual", andhehas adduced1 Cor. 6: 18 to showthat thereis asecond categoryof sinthat is "natural."His proof isthepracticeof baptismitself, whichthe Manichacansdidnot em-ploy, but whichtheir opponentshereclearly do. Theauthor seesacontradictionindenyingnatural sin, andyet baptizinginfants, justasAugustinedidinhisPelagianopponents.The referencetobaptismis abit of ahistorical puzzle. Augustinesaysthissamethingmoreorlesswordforwordmanytimes.83It isone of his favoritearguments. Of course,J ulianis quoting MenoelLtoshowitssimilarity withAugustine. Theproblemisthat theuniversal consensus among scholarsisthat the Christians of easternSyria,those presumably withwhomMani had contact and conOicr, didnotpraCliceinfant baptisminthe timeof Mani. Baptismwasreservedfor adults, andcelibateadultsat that. Thetestimonyof AphrahatandEphremseems to makethis clear. FOJ" the authorto ;lrgue:ls hedoes inthe Letter10 Menoell, therewouldhavetobeeasternChris-tians baptizinginfants. If everythingelseinthe leuerstands uptoscrutiny, andthus acasecanbemadefor itsauthenticity, thismaybe a very important early testimony to infant baptism practiced amongtheSyrianChristians, at least amongthe Bardaisanites.IV. 771& Argument against AUlllenlieirySincethedevelopment of modernManichaeanstudies, theLettertoMenoehhasbeenrelegatedtothecategory of spuna. Asdiscussedintheintroduction of this study, therearetwobasicformsof thisver-dict. Thefirst regards theletterasaChristianforgerydesignedtodiscredit certain rival Christians (among themAugustine) by makingthemappeartoechoMani therenownedheretic. Thesecondviewarb'Ues that the Jetteris a late Western Manichaean pseudepigraphum,heavily Christianized in the manner typical of Augustine's NorthAf-rican opponentsFortunatus, Faustus, andFelix.83 De pecc. mml., passim.I.E'ITER TOMENOCH: AUTHENTICITYANDDOCTRINE 155Thecommonviewthat thelelteris nOt anauthclllicproduct ofMani is supported primarily by the sense that it "presents amarkedtcndency of adaptation to Christian terminolobry" of which .Mani wasincapable due to his time and location.8olThe Icltcr clcarly shows greatfamiliarity with the Christian New Testament, and invokes it as scrip-turc, and this secms morcin line withthe Christianized Manichaeismof aFaustusthantheprimal traditionof Mani.85Aalders drawsat-tentionto themarkedsimilarity of presentationinthcL'llinTehessaCodex, apoint that cerlainlyhasmuch tobesaidfor it. Alfaric, itshouldbenotcd, suggeststhat thetreatiseinthe TehessaCodtxmaybe an authenticworkof Mani,86a possibility takenseriously byMerkc1bach.87But Aalders rejects this claim, and thepresent authors'researches also cast it into doubt.88A key differencebetweenthe twotexts, of course, is that nothinginsurviving fragments of theTehessaCodex attributes its contents to Mani, whereas the utter to Menoch openswithMani'sname.What is lackinginbOlhAlfaric'sandAalders's earlier appraisalsis a systematic examination which works with specific criteria, or anything that movesbeyondsentimelll andillluition. ThesedesiderataaresuppliedinMarkusStein's recent monographonthe Leflertoklt1loch. Stein's admirable edition and study of the letteris easily thcmost comprehensive to date, andinhis commentary he focuses againon the issue ofauthenticity.89In doing so, he draws attentionto threekinds of relcvant datawithinthe content of theletter that must de-terminewhetherit isanauthenticcomposition of Mani, ornot. Inour opinion, Stein has correctly idcntified the perlinent intcrnal evi-denceonwhich thequestionof authenticityrests, namely, (I) lin-guisticcvidence, especiallytheletter'scitationof scripture, (2) theletter'scharacterization of Mani's Christianopponents, and1:3) ref-erences within the letter's arguments to contemporaneous usages andIl4 Aalders1960, 247.85 Aalders1960,247.86 "Unmanuscritmanichccn"J Rtl,lllf d'huloiu tf dtlittaalllTtn.s., 6 (1920)91fT.S7 Reinholdrvlerkclbach, "DermaniehaiseheCodex\'onTebessa", in Bl)'der,cd., Manichatan Studiu:PtQCudings tif tht FiTst Inlemaliollal Co'!fmnu on Alallichaeism, Lund:Plus Ultra, 1988,233.811 SeeJ. BeUuhn and G. Harrison, "The Tebessa Codex:t\i\'lanichaean TreatiseonBiblical Exegesis and ChurchOrder", in r t...lirecki andj. BeDuhn, cds., tlnergingfromDaTknm: Siudiuin tnt Recovny tif Alallicnaeall .wUTUS, Lciden:E.j. Brill, 199i, 3387.!l9 Stein1998,23-43.156 GEot"FREYHARRISON A."D JASONBEDUHNpractices. Onthebasis of thisevidence, Steinconcludesrnal Manicould not betheauthor of the ullato AJtmKh aswenowhaveit,90~ n d he proceeds to explore the two remaining options, iliat is, whetherthe letter is a latc, \\'esternManichaean pseudepigraphumor aPelagianforgerycomposedwiththesoleintent of discrediting Au-gustine.9lNext wewill takeup and examineStein's reasons for dismissingtheletter's authenticity.I. Does theLetter to Menoell betray dependenceupontheVu(gattin its biblicalquotations?According totheaccount ofJulianof Eclanum, theLetter toMenoellfromwhichhequoteswassenttohimfromConstantinople at theinstigation of Aorus. Presumably, the letter discovered there was writ-teninGreek, andeither Florus, or hisConstantinoplecontact, orJulianhimself translatedit intoLatin. Sothere is nothingpeculiarabout theletterbeing quotedinLatin, norany evidenceeither foror against theletter's authenticitytobederivedfromthe grammarand style of theLatinused. Thereis only one sort of linguistic evi-dence at all pertinent to theissue at hand, andthatis the quotationof theBiblewithintheletter. Aforger workinginLatinmight bebetrayed if it can be shown that biblical quotations follow the Vulgateat variance withthe Creek. Stein proposes that, while in general thebiblical quotations of the letter are loose and difficult to build a caseon, ina fewinstances theauthor showsa dependenceupon theVulgate, and that this evidence constitutes the strongest case againsttheletter's authenticity.92If onecomparesthequotationsfromtheNew Testament inthcIcttcr withthcVulgate, oncseesthat th