Talk:Manichaeism

old comments

"This followed from the Christian tenet that there can be a Satan that is not of the totality of God, the duality that there can be a God the Creator and that which is not of God the Creator."

To me, this doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure what aspect of orthodox Christian theology it refers to. God created everything; there is nothing that is "not of God". Creation though is not God (cf. pantheism, panentheism etc.). Is it supposed to refer to God being completely 'other', existing completely independently of His creation?

Manichaeism held, in my understanding, that the universe did have a God-created Good component and a non-God-created Evil (satanic) component. The universe warred therefore. All we humans partake of that "warring", in our dual natures. 68.162.181.202 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Italic textI made a number of changes. The page I saw confused the Mandaians and the Manichees. Since there was no talk I assumed nobody much cares. -- Kleinecke

I cannot seem to locate an article for the religious figure, and founder of Manichaeism, known as Mani. I assume the disambiguation page has discouraged the creation of an article for this influential individual. Usedbook 22:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

"The religion was founded by Mani, who reportedly was born in western Persia and lived approximately 210-275 AD." "The date of his death is fixed at 276-277 AD." So which is true?

Mani's Death

"After failing to win the favor of the next generation (of rulers? of the population?), and having the disapproval of the Zoroastrian clergy, Mani is reported to have died in prison awaiting execution by the Persian Emperor Bahram I, who, soon after his accession, caused Mani to be crucified. He then had the corpse flayed and the skin stuffed and hung up at the city gate as a terrifying spectacle to his followers, whom the new emperor persecuted with relentless severity. Other accounts say he was beheaded."

Confusing, huh? Does this account show three accounts of Mani's death or two (with editing needed)? Anyone know? WBardwin 01:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The discussion of paraclete needs to be consolidated from two separate places. Hooray for whoever can do this! - dd

Mani (216-267/7) and his 'biography'

---

The Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis (CMC) by Theodoor Harmsen -in Dutch!- : 'About the life and work of Mani, the founder of Manichean religion very little was known for a long time...however, now we know a lot more... ' This author, among others, Prof. G. Quispel, Francois Favre, Hans van Oort) gave a lecture about the man Mani at a Symposium last May/2005 held in Bilthoven, the Netherlands : Mani, the Gift of Light. I'll try in the coming months to start a new page on Mani. However, due to a busy research project it might take some time, since a lot of new material has emerged with the discovery of the 'Cologne Mani-Codex'(only published in German and Dutch at this moment). You might want to check the internet site of Cologne University.
I have added some info. and references.
CHITRANI 9 SEP/05 15.26 (GMT +1)

Iffy stuff

1. Arguably, Manichaeism is strictly a Christian heresy, and not a religion in its own right. It develops in a Christian area of eastern Persia, among Gnostics, and was opposed by Zoroastrians. Presenting it as an alternative religion is...iffy.
2. According to the Ox. Dict. Christian Church, there are several archeological sources, but they're contradictory, so to make a surmise from any one of them is...iffy.
   1. Ephraem Syrus, Titus of Bostra, Serapion of Thmuis, and St. Augustine give details as they wrote against the sect.
   2. A "dialogue" of Manes and a "bishop Archelaus," Acta Archelai.
   3. Medieval Islamic historians came across Manicheans in modern Iraq and described it, esp. Al-Biruni.
   4. A collection of M. documents was found in Turfan in Chinese Turkestan in 1904-5.
   5. Another collection, from the 3rd and 4th centuries, found in Egypt in 1930, which appear to be by his earliest disciples. Published by C. Schmidt and H. J. Polotsky.
   6. A biography of Manes found in Egypt.
3. The revival of the sect today means that we're going to have books out there that are...iffy.
4. Thus, the presentation of the sect without a discussion of Gnosticism in general, as well as Zoroastrianism, leads readers with something of a wrong idea...maybe.

Geogre 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Arguably, Manichaeism is strictly a Christian heresy, and not a religion in its own right."

Maybe it was both a religion in its own right and a Christian heresy. And a Zoroastrian heresy too. And a Taoist heresy. And a Buddhist heresy. Mani took what he deemed right from other churches and religions, and built his religion by integrating all that according to his own revelation from God - this revelation sometimes summarized as the teaching of the two natures and the three times.

Don't forget that not only did he referred to himself as a Apostle of Christ, but also as the Buddha of Light, a reincarnation of Laotze.

--80.108.172.240 10:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh? What's your source for that claim made by him? Where is the document that you derive that from? Is it one of those listed above, or is it a contemporary author trying to create a new cult? The sources contradict each other. Contemporaries try to make a very harsh group seem terribly Californian. Geogre 10:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My source for what claim? Be specific. Like for example: where is your source for your claim that they were a very harsh group?

--80.108.172.240 10:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What's your source that Mane "took what he deemed right from other churches and religions." That sure seems like a post hoc opinion, and not one supported by any documentation I've encountered. I hope that you can cite a source for that view and that the citation is based on something contemporary with the actual Manichaeans, and not something brought in later as an apologetic. I would like to see documentation of the claims throughout this article that Manichaeism developed de novo or anything except as a variation on Gnosticism that patched in some of the Zoroastrian cosmology. Gnosticism was always ready for a Zoroastrian implant. Manes made the grafting. As for their being a group most intolerant of "servants of Satan," which would be everyone not them, as the Satanic demiurge had blinded them with the world, you can look to the Gnostic gospels that they included, to the record of Augustine, and, in a pinch, the few records we have of the Albigensians. Sweet folks, those. However, the point here is that there is no documentation for a claim that disagrees with other, specified, sources. To paint these folks as proto-Deists is ... very, very, very strange. To make them into proto-hippies is weirder still. The plausibility is so low as to be almost not worth challenging (e.g. how did they "find" all these world religions? it would require an incredibly literate and well organized theology to do that, and it would require an amazingly omniscient group to have encountered all the religions you speak of; instead, you get a group that goes to India and experiences syncretism with Buddhism, a group that goes to Turkestan and gets syncretic with the local beliefs, a group that goes west and encounters a well-defined anti-Gnostic battle...at which they fail to be syncretic; the result is that some mountebank of the 20th century can assemble the disparate hints of the long-extinct groups and make a grandiose claim that this was some rational, Deistic, universalism; and that claim works so long as you don't understand Dualism, or the Gnostics, in antiquity). Geogre 14:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Okay, here is my source. In Kephalaion 154 Mani himself said (cited in The Manichaean Body by Jason BeDuhn):

"The writings, wisdoms, apocalypses, parables and psalms of the earlier churches are from all parts reunited in my church to the wisdom which I have revealed to you. As a river is joined to another river to form a powerful current, just so are the ancient books joined in my writings; and they form one great wisdom, such as has not existed in preceding generations."

1. Manichaeism as "a variation on Gnosticism that patched in some of the Zoroastrian cosmology" is certainly not the default interpretation. Nor is it the opinion of any of the authors of books on Manichaeism I've ever read. It's like calling orthodox Christianity "a variation of Judaism that patched in some of the Hellenistic mythology".
2. The manichaean demiurge was not satanic. The world was created by an emanation of the Father of Light, called the Second Son (sometimes also called the Living Spirit). Source: Manichaean creation hymn: http://gnosis.org/library/Mani.html
3. Please cite a source for your claim that the Manichaeans considered everyone but themselves als servants of Satan.
4. Was Augustine an enemy of the Manichaeans? Would you trust an enemy of Augustine as a judge of his character?
5. Who cares for the Albigensians? Were they Manichaeans? Did they call themselves that? Did they mention Mani anywhere in their writings?
6. I never called the Manichaeans deist. They were certainly not deists. They worshipped a God who revealed himself to people. Nor do I consider them proto-hippies or anything of that sort. Manichaeans had a very strong sense of truth and error.
7. Yes, they took from different religions as they encountered them in different parts of the world. But that was part of the plan (see the quote from Mani from above).
8. I'm quite sure that I understand Dualism and the Gnostics better than you.

--80.108.172.240 15:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So, you have a translation of something by Mani saying that he takes in all previous truths. Ok. Now, is that Mani combining the best of all religions, or is it a claim that he has collected the particles of light? Is it a conscious plan, or is it a statement that he regarded himself as gnosis? Is it a plan or just a boast? Matthew says that Christ is the fulfillment of all Scripture, and his Gospel is at pains to show the fulfillment of prophecy: does that mean that it is a part of the "plan" of Christianity to fulfill all prophecies everywhere, to go out and glean from Hinduism? Jesus says, "I am the light." Does that mean that he was a gnostic? Such a tendentious interpretation is scarely to be credited.

So, if you have books by Manicheans, I doubt you will find them being at all reductive of their religion. However, it is the archeological view to say that it is primarily a Gnostic religion that shows contact with and absorption of Zoroastrians. How did the Christians react to it when they met it the first time? Was it shock and surprise at this "new religion?" No. They knew exactly what it was: a Gnostic form of Christianity. N.b. one of the early sources on their theology is a supposed dialogue of Mani with a bishop (of the Christian Church). The first bishops to actually counter its effects in the west saw it as Paulicanism. Were they just not intimates, or did they know something, with Manichaeans all around them, that we, with none, do not? They were responding within 100 years of Mani's death, after all, and would presumably know what they were talking about. This is, in fact, why I do trust Augustine. He knew his sources from contemporary life. You have to rely upon documentary evidence that is largely scattered to the wind. What is extant might represent outlying churches, might be offshoots, might be heretical within Manichaeism, might be coded, might be caballistic, and upon such slender reeds you would build a global interpretation? I would rather trust the literate churchmen who encountered the Manichaeans directly, whether they were adversarial or not. (Do we doubt what Pelagianism believed because we have virtually nothing by Pelagus and only oppositional literature?)

Nice dodge behind the "Second Son." What does "Lucifer" mean? What does "Satan" mean? What is the cosmology of the fall of the angels? Perhaps you'd like to reconsider that "not servants of Satan." Indeed, those blinded by the world had dissipated their light.

If they weren't deists, then why this "gathering the true bits from other religions?" The POV involved in such an assertion is breath taking. You can say that they took from other religions, or you can call it what most people would, if feeling generous: syncretism. You regard it as a plan. I regard it as simple adaptation to local pressures. You believe that a single claim of being the omega equates to a plan to gather up from all religions. You can, if you wish, but that's not proof of the claim.

As for who knows dualism better, it's irrelevant, and I'll gladly cede that title to you. Geogre 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think what Mani said is quite obvious and easy to understand. But if you want to think about it some more, maybe it will give you good insight. That's what the writing of the greats often do.

• I don't have books by Manichaeans, I have books by religious scholars about Manichaeism. There are no contemporary writings of Manichaeans that I know of.

• What's a gnostic religion? The Manichaeans had a personal God who created the world, and who revealed himself to mankind. They prayed to him, worshipped him, gave alms and did all the religious stuff. That's not a gnostic religion, that's just - religion.

• Islamic apologist believed that the Baha'i-faith was just another heresy, now it's a world faith. Who's right, who's wrong here?

• There are millions of people in the world, writing millions of books, and millions of webpages about their former faiths - do you think they all know what they talk about and can therefore be trusted?

• We have original writings of the Manichaeans. We don't have to rely on religious apologists who wrote inane things like that the Manichaeans believed in two opposite gods.

• What's with the "nice dodge"? The Father send his Son to build the world. That's it. Nothing about Lucifer, Satan or any fallen angel.

• A Deist is someone who believes that God created the world and can only be known through reason. The Manichaeans believed in a God who revealed himself at several times to mankind.

• Doesn't matter if it was a plan to gather the wisdom from other churches or not - it happened, Mani already talked about, deal with it.

--80.108.172.240 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear anonymous coward, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place to proselytize nor to right the wrongs of the world or history. You are clearly a believer in this "religion." It is good that you have strong beliefs, and I would not tell you not to have them. However, Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, and not a primary outlet for original research, nor a place for second hand reporting. It is sufficient, for me, that this article not be passed as a Featured Article while it contains statements that cannot be supported by historians or which rely solely upon a single, alternative history. You have the right to believe in an "original" from Mani, although no works directly by him survive and the reports and accounts of both his life and sayings contradict each other, and priviledging one above the others is the prorogative of any believer. However, it does not exemplify the best of Wikipedia. A Request for Content on the subject matter of the article would be an excellent method of determining community judgment on whether the article's claim that Manichaeism set out to "take the best" from all other religions is supportable or not and whether, with contradictory documents by 3rd and 4th century believers, such whoppers can remain in the article or not. However, I have no interest in either converting you to orthodoxy, nor dissuading you from your point of view. I do hope, though, as I hope for everyone, that you show extra skepticism when the preacher has a cart of books to sell. Geogre 02:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about original research. I base my views on the writings of the Manichaeans and the scholary work of people like Samuel Lieu and Jason BeDuhn. That's not the stuff believers are made of. You rely on the writings of Christian apologists.

For example your position that Manichaeism is strictly a Christian heresy and not a religion in its own right is very much a minority position. Actually, I know of no scholar of Manichaeism who would agree with that. They all say that it's a religion.

If you would read any work of a scholar of Manichaeism, then you would see that I'm safely in the mainstream of research.

--Norbert Sima 06:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Please cite your sources as they are called upon. For example, I find that Lieu has written about Manichaean church organization, and BeDuhn has written about art. More to the point, BeDuhn has written about art concerning the Manichees at the Turkestan site. I can't imagine that he's making grand claims about all Manichaeism everywhere based on a single archeological find; scholars don't, generally. Specifically, these claims on origins (when there aren't documents) and the deistic claims (incidentally, deism is two separate historical and theological movements; one is rationalist; the other, that of Edward of Cherbury, is that you take all the common bits to world religions, and you'll have the Natural Religion) need references. I began asking for references, and I remain asking for references. Geogre 09:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you are just trolling here, but anyway. BeDuhn has wrote a book called The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual. It's cited in the references of this article. In it he quoted aforementioned Kephalaion 154 and wrote after that:

"A Manichaean parable preserved in Sogdian confirms this sentiment, likening other religions to small bodies of water and the Manichaean faith to a vast ocean that receives and assimilates all other waters to its own particular flavor."

Now where are your sources that contradict that? You haven't shown any sources for your claims yet. And no, dropping the names of Augustine and the Albigensians is not enough.

I said it before and I say it again: Manichaeism is not a deistic religion. It's a revealed religion. The source for that is the Introduction to the Kepahlaia, cited in Mani, the Angel and the Column of Glory by Andrew Welburn:

"The living Paraclete came down and spoke to me. It was he who revealed to me the secret Mystery that was hidden from the worlds and the generations: the Mystery of the Depth and the Height. He revealed to me the Mystery of the Light and the Darkness, the Mystery of their conflict and the great war which the Darkness stirred up [...]

Thus was revealed to me by the Paraclete all that has been and that shall be, all that the eyes sees and the ear hears and the thought thinks."

--Norbert Sima 10:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Geogre. Could you explain the difference between "Christian heresy" and "alternative religion"? It could defuse the perception that you are giving a biased reading. I see no clear distinction. Durandir 03:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

Actually, re-reading, I'd have to say that about half the article seems to be derived from a proponent of neo-Manichaeism who is, frankly, spinning quite a lot of bull fluff. He taught the Zoroastrians the meaning of their scriptures? He explained Christianity to Christians? <cough> I'm sorry, but that's on the level of Holy Blood, Holy Grail or DaVinci Code. Never trust the soothsayer with a caravan of books to unload on you.

The books that are mentioned that got included are...surprise!...the Gnostic sources. Now, is this because Manes was trying to be a good, tolerant, universalist (when his dualism was amazingly strict and proscribed very, very extreme punishments for servants of error?), or was he a Gnostic Christian who developed a specific cosmology? Well, we've got all the contemporaries from orthodoxy saying the latter. We have contemporary followers not saying "boo" about it. We've got a modern tale spinner saying so.

Sorry, but I can't support while the theology is so ... wacky. Geogre 00:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Along the lines of NPOV issues, I have made two very minor changes. First, the quotation from "the lecturer" is very odd. It sticks out. (I looked up the history and it was inserted by one editor into a long stretch of historical text from another editor.) It is not written from the normal historical view point, and there is no attempt to buttress this guy as an authority on the history of Manicheaism. In addition, I believe it is historically very contentious, and most reasonable people would conclude it is false. What I deleted: "In 2005, the lecturer Francois Favre said of Mani: 'He taught the Christians the profound, esoteric aspect of Universal Christianity, revealed the true meaning of the message of Zoroaster to the Persian Magis and explained the liberating Path to the Buddhist. The religion whom he founded revealed the mysteries of "divine man" and enlightened millions of souls for more than a thousand years.'" Now, if I claim I taught the true meaning of the theory of relativity to Einstein, no one would believe me unless Einstein verified. Does any objective person really think that Christians, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists think Mani taught them anything? Give me a break. It doesn't belong. To make it belong would take a bit of fancy footwork in buffer-text from the person who wants it there (e.g., From the Manichaean point of view Mani was finding the ture meaning of all the religions from which he borrowed, etc. etc.). Why do you want it there, unless you want to present something that is not historical fact as historical fact? Second, "heretics" is put in scare-quotes at the very end of the article, which is non-NPOV. The word 'heretic' means something, and that thing exists in any religion-- a dissenter or doctrinal maverick. It comes from the Greek word to choose or pluck: the heretic takes what he likes and leaves the rest from the set of beliefs that the larger established community affirms. Whether you like them or not (NPOV!), the Manichees were certainly heretics, not only for Christians, but for any other group from which Mani took what he liked and left the rest. Now we may not like the fact that religions don't like their heretics and are often mean to them, but that is irrelevant. I think the nonNPOV would be clear to all if we were to put 'dissenter' in scare-quotes rather than 'heretic,' yet they mean basically the same thing. Besides, scare-quotes should not be used in neutral writing as a rule because they express disdain for the people who use the word and usually imply that you don't think it should be a word at all. Now, if you are tempted to use scare-quotes, it is usually better to find a neutral word or description that you can use with a straight face. --skeptic 68.48.136.5 16:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

"Myth"

Why is it I find the word "myth" used categorically throughout this article, however there is not one similar incidence of the term used in the article relating to christianity, for example? I'm not proposing there is inherent truth (or untruth) in Manichaeism, i'm questioning the NPOV stance on referring to any religion or philosophy as "myth". This is an assertion of falsehood.

Myth = a term to describe an elaborate story or worldview. For example, you will hear of people discussing the "creation myth" when talking about the story of creation in the book of Genesis. That's another term for "story of creation", except that people who study these subjects a lot like to use the word "myth" in the sense of an elaborate description, instead of the word "story". So if you read the literature about Manichaeism, you will find the word "myth" used a lot.Jimhoward72 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"We"

who is "we"? "we found"? is this a direct quote? Nice work. 202.172.125.55 13:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC).

Sentence removal

So, 80.XXX.XX, why did you remove:

"The Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars were certainly dualists and felt that the world was the work of a demiurge of Satanic origin, but whether this was due to influence from Manichaeism or Gnosticism is impossible to determine?"

The sentence was sourced to the Ox. Dict. of the Christian Church and, in fact, says that the Bogomils, Paulicians, and Cathars' belief in a wicked world may or may not be due to an influence from Manichaeism and that we simply don't know (as we don't know very much about Manichaeism after its suppression in the west or its form in Central Europe). I.e. it supported your denunciation, above, that the Cathars aren't Manicheans. Strange to remove it, especially in favor of a no source. I assume this was an error and so have re-inserted it as true and as lessening the indictment of Manicheism made by 13th c. bishops. Geogre 21:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Manichaeans didn't believe that the world was the work of a demiurge of Satanic origin, so the sentence makes no sense here. And please don't tell me that maybe some Manichaeans somewhere believed in something like that.

--80.108.172.240 21:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Why did you reverse my edits anyway, Goegre? I thought you didn't like the lines about explaining to Zoroastrians and Christians the true meaning of their religions? I don't think that they add anything of substance to the article, they just add a POV. --80.108.172.240 22:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of that sentence, and none of "your edits." I did this because the sentence, if you read it, is documented, true, and, in fact, says that we cannot say if the Albigensian view that the world is the work of Satan is due to Manichaeism or not. The only reason to cut that sentence is if you know how the Bogomils got their dualism. If you know that, you need to be publishing in the history journals right away, and not on Wikipedia, which has a no original research provision. Nothing else of yours was reverted. Geogre 02:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

But we can know if this view is due to Manichaeism or not, because there is clear evidence from their original writings that they didn't believe that the world is the work of Satan. Doesn't matter what the Christian apologists said. That's irrelevant. This sentence should stay out because it's associating the Manichaeans with an extreme and strange view. And I guess you like this sentence to stay because it does exactly that.

And I also deleted two other lines, and you put them pack in. And you even said that one of them reminds you of the quality of the DaVinci Code. And I agree with you. And I think you put them pack in so that you can continue to oppose the proposal to make this a featured article.

--80.108.172.240 05:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Added content

I added some information on their core beliefs and a reference. There seems to be a lot of other key information missing. Uriah923 16:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Muhammed Ref.

I saw there was a reference to Muhammed claiming the title of "Paraclete." What's the source for that?

Manichaeism, a mixed religion/philosophy.

As i read about Manichaeism I begin to see that it seemed to be a mix of may philosophies from different religions. It apears that this philosophy drew its Metaphysics from the old Parsism, its morals from Buddhism, and its over all structure and dislike of mainline Christians it got from the gnostics, of which Manichaeism would be grouped with. Manichaeism seemed to rely on knowledge and experience more than truth (Gnostic). Its asceticism would rivel any Buddist. It even seems to draw its idea of Dark and Light, Good and Bad from some of the things that Aristotle taught. God is one and the the thing that is farthest from him is matter. That is really how the Manichaeists looked at it. All physical was Bad and dark but knowledge and spirits were light and good. Was Manichaeism just a mix of many religions or was it the true way of thinking? sources:The Oxford Companion to Phylosophy. Encyclopaedis of Religion Knowledge.

Theology

"Mahometan writers claimed it is a prophecy of Jesus regarding Mahomet." Is this supposed to read Muslim writers claimed it is a prophecy of Jesus regarding Muhammad or is it a different Mahomet? Ackie00 09:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Augustine of Hippo

" Saint Augustine of Hippo, who converted to Christianity from Manichaeism, which he passionately denounced in his writings, and whose writing continues to be enormously influential among Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theologians." This is incorrect. Bl. Augustine's writings have barely hard any influence on Orthodox theology at all and much of what he wrote is vehemently opposed. It's only been in recent years that there has been a trend in the Orthodox Church to try and rehabilitate Bl. Augustine, and then only as a figure of piety rather than the great theologian he is seen as in the west. It would be more correct to state that the general Orthodox perspective of the saint is that whilst he was a good Christian his theological writings were often outside of the Tradition of the Church and that it was the western church's over-reliance on Augustine (due to his writing in Latin as opposed to Greek) that lead to the theological issues behind the Great Schism (the filioque) and many of the later developments in Roman Catholicism opposed by the Orthodox Church.

This claim could not be further from the truth! Augustine is well known to be the FATHER of Western Theology, and what is considered Western orthodox Christian faith. Whether theologians like it or not, most of our foundational theology is dependant on Augustine (as I have said, at least in the West). We may disagree with him on some points, but that is far from what you are suggesting. Further, this pays no respect to the prevalent argument in Augustinian scholarship that Augustine, to some degree, converts orthodox Christianity to HIS way of thinking.

Spelling

Of course, there are about a bazillion different spellings/formations of the name of the religion founded by Mani: Manicheanism and Manichaeanism spring immediately to mind, not to mention the versions with diphthongs, and more archaic forms like Manicheeism. I recognise that the Google test gives the present spelling as the majority one, nevertheless, the article moves freely between different versions without having noted the different names; would it be worth, somehow, sticking an "also known as" at the beginning of the article? The problem is, with so many different versions, it could get tedious. So what to do? Wooster (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We should look it up in current encyclopedias and dictionaries, and stick with the spelling they have there.--Jimhoward72 20:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

According to my knowledge and several dictionaries (such as Random House Unabridged, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary or Websters Ninth New Collegiate Dictionaries), Man‧i‧che‧ism or Manichaeism or the archaic form referred to above pertain to the doctrine, while Manichaean, Manichean or Manichee refer to the particpants. If I have the chance I will go through the article and look for any of the inconsistencies you are referencing. Stevenmitchell 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ideally supposed to be a scholarly Wikipedia article, so you should look at how current scholars researching Manichaeism spell it. For example, how did they spell it at the last international conference on Manichaeism? How is it spelled in current research articles and books on Manichaeism? It might be helpful if you looked at some of those articles so you would implement the correct changes.Jimhoward72 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

While you are checking names and spellings, could the conflict between the third sentence in the first paragraph under Origins

Mani is a Persian name and fairly common name among the Aramaic speakers, being found in all three Aramaic dialects.

and the first sentence of the third paragraph under Origins

The name Mani is mainly a title and term of respect rather than a personal name. This title was assumed by the founder himself and so completely replaced his personal name that the precise form of the latter is not known.

The inconsistancy would be easy to miss were the two sentences further apart or if nobody cared about such things. However, since this is supposed to be a scholarly article, based upon reliable sources, someone should reconcile the difference. JimCubb 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of inconsistencies in the article (besides the one you mention). It looks like some of the early writers of the article were using very outdated material, and basing their writing on already inaccurate information from other internet sites. I did a few searches on some of the earlier material, and found that some seemed to be copied and pasted from other (inaccurate/biased) sites, which in turn, copied some of it straight from Runciman's (outdated) "The Medieval Manichee". Another example - the person who quotes the "Gnostic Bible" as if it were some kind of primary source (instead of a collection of English translations) may have good intentions in trying to show that Buddhism had a connection with Manichaeism, but their scholarship is unsound - they must give a date and language for their primary source if they want to show that Buddhism influenced Manichaeism's formation (3rd century CE). Just because Buddha is mentioned many times in later, eastern Manichaean works means nothing about its origins - to tack on Buddhist terms and the word "Buddha" during translation was common in more eastern locations (such as Turkistan or China).

Current Influence

Ok, I'm no expert on Manichaeism, in fact, I know very little about it, but I do know classical history, and the thing about Manichaeism influencing Western thought through Augustine sounds pretty far out there to me, especially since the same sentence goes on to note how strongly Augustine opposed Manichaeism. This sentence needs to be deleted or heavily modified.

• • But, nevertheless Augustine of Hippo was deeply influenced by his exposure to Manichaeism, whether he felt threatened by its existence and competition or not. But, you are probably right to point out that the sentence requires modification... Stevenmitchell 07:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

The third paragraph of "criticism" section makes little or no sense at all.

Is the section Criticisms even needed? A quote from a theologian debating a theological issue ("...knowledge was the key to salvation...") seems completly unnecessary. I think the entire Criticisms section should be removed. Somaticvibe 10 December 2006

And the presence of "Ironically, the terms 'Manichaean' and 'dualist' are often used to disparage Christians and others..." seems to lack NPOV, as well as miss the point inherent to criticizing a viewpoint as being Manichaean, particularly if that viewpoint seems to be fruit from the same tree. Artsygeek 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo-Scholarship

This "debate" is a farce being conducted by fourth-rate wannabes. If you aren't scholars with graduate-level training in the primary source languages (Koine Greek, Latin, Syriac, Middle Persian, etc.) kindly shut your foolish pie-holes. This is why the scholarly community doesn't take Wikipedia's project seriously: it's fine for entries on Britney Spears, but when you delve into ancient and medieval religious history, you halfwits are all entirely out of your depth.

I'll second that.

Yeah, no argument: unqualified people ought not to share their ignorance. And qualified people ought to sign their posts, lest they be taken for snobs. -Turi

Ok, I'm frankly tired of hearing this kind of insult to injury. You don't need a Ph.d to debate, have say in a topic, or have an opinion, much less point out facts. There are inumerable instances when a layperson with no college credentials, possibly not even high school equivelence has proven someone with a Ph.d wrong before. A Ph.d is not a license to infallibility, much less a license to permit only you to speak on a subject. 208.102.209.167 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Joshua

Cathars & Manicheanism

The article draws a link between the Cathars & Manicheans but descibes it as tenuous. However, the similarities between what is here and the beliefs and structures of Cathar Christianity are extraordinarily similar. They are also close to Gnostic beliefs of the early years of Christianity. And of course everything traces back to the Zoroastrians. Since these regions were the seedbed of Manicheanism and the Bogomils had a bridge to the region through Byzantium isn´t it legitimate to draw links? ThePeg 18:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis might be classified as "original research" and wouldn't be appropriate in a Wikipedia article. Scholars have been debating just the question you raise for decades, and the article currently reflects their best conclusions (that the link is "tenuous"). The article on Catharism should come to almost the same conclusions.Jimhoward72 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush's supposed Manicheanism

President Bush's "If you are not with us, then you are against us" approach to the "war on terror" has often been described as 'Manichean'. A google search for - George Bush Manichean - just returned in excess of 85,000 results. This does not seem to be a reasonable description of a religion that supposedly draws upon Buddhism for its Morality. Could someone who knows the difference care to clarify this? Stagyar 20:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Stagyar

Calling George Bush by this term does not mean that it is "a reasonable description of a religion .... ". What it means is that today's media is using a modern catch-word to describe the President. It probably shouldn't make any more sense than the average high-school teenager claiming that Adolf Hitler was a "communist".Jimhoward72 00:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimhoward72 - Yes, present media usage seems to be grossly inaccurate and that's my point exactly. I think this article should explicitly work to correct that error, perhaps by including a section with the title I've used above. I bet that many of the people who find their way here come to learn what the word 'Manicheanism' means after having encountered it for the first time in a sentence following 'George Bush's'. I certainly did. At a minimum, a useful clarification would be that "eternal conflict between the forces of good and evil" does not translate into "If you aren't with us, then you are against us" for a Manichean follower. --Stagyar 23:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed from time to time that people come to this article because they found the word "manichean" used in modern media, and are trying to figure out what it means. I'm not sure if this article should address that use of the word in detail, since this article is in the realm of a religious phenomenon, like the articles on Christianity and Zoroastrianism. Maybe there should be some kind of re-direct page or something? In the past, people have put the modern definition in from time to time, but then it gets removed by someone else who wants to maintain the integrity of the article. Not sure what the solution is - maybe a separate wikipedia entry for the modern term? That way, someone could go into detail about its modern use in politics - something that would be inappropriate in this article on the religion.Jimhoward72 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Manichaeism and Other Religions

What about the influence of Manichaeism on Islam? Shouldn't this be addressed? Is there any information about Judaism and it's relationship with these principles? Seems odd that Christianity is mentioned, while the other Abrahamic faiths are ignored. 213.217.216.126 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:10, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

There is plenty of information on the subjects you mentioned - buried in various research works on Manichaeism. Whoever wants to can dig up the information, properly sourced, and put it in the article. Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism are mentioned, because they had prominent and known inter-relations with Manichaeism. There are no actual references to Manichaeism in Jewish literature, and Jewish influence on Manichaeism is more round-about. For example, you can say that the Manichaean myth is in parts, somewhat of an elaboration of the Jewish creation myth, or that the Manichaeans used Enochic literature, also found in Jewish writings. As for the influence on Islam, can you mention an author that discusses that topic?Jimhoward72 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

Just out of intrest, who goes around resizing images to make them so small that nobody can see them properly or see any of the details in them? I've noticed it on other wikipedia articles & would really like to know if there is any purpose to it. <Fennessy/talk> 14:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

IPA

Could someone please add the IPA spelling of the title at the beginning of the article? I'm not sure how to pronounce it, and my Persian isn't so good at the moment. 68.252.237.150 (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hermes and Plato?

The article on Manichaeism says that, 'He [Mani] claimed to be the 'Paraclete of the Truth', as promised in the New Testament: the Last Prophet and Seal of the Prophets that finalized a succession of men guided by God and included figures such as Zoroaster, Hermes, Plato, Buddha, and Jesus.' I have a question about the last part of this: is it true that Mani regarded Hermes and Plato as prophets or divinely guided men? I ask because numerous sources on Gnosticism generally and Manichaeism specifically(including A. A. Bevan's article on Manichaeism in James Hastings's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Geo Widengren's book on Manichaeism, Hans Jonas's The Gnostic Religion, and Kurt Rudolph's Gnosis, along with online sources such as the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Manichaeism) do not make this claim. If the claim that Mani saw Hermes and Plato as prophets, or thought of himself as their sucessor, is in fact correct, however, it would be extremely helpful to add a footnote giving a source supporting this, especially since it apparently contradicts several other sources. Skoojal (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The source you are asking about was probably one of the old original public domain works that was borrowed from to create the original article (I know that Runciman's old book "The Religion of the Manichees" was one much-used source). Since you have more accurate information and are not simply copying from a book, you may as well update the article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Manichaean Theology

Part of the article currently reads, 'A key belief in Manichaeism is that there is no omnipotent good power. This claim addresses a theoretical part of the problem of evil by denying the infinite perfection of God and postulating the two equal and opposite powers mentioned previously.' To me this characterisation of Manichaean belief seems questionable. Manichees were just as confident as Christians that good would eventually triumph over evil (albeit they had a different idea of how this would happen), so how accurate is it to say that they saw the powers of good and evil as equal? Perhaps an expanded coverage of Manichaean eschatology would allow a better treatment of this issue.

But how are you going to re-word it, unless you are quoting from a Manichaean scholar, or are one yourself? I think the point is something like - that a key feature of Manichaeism is that they believe that evil and good were not mixed in the beginning, but instead were two eternally separate realms with their own eternal and separate rulers, which only later became mixed. (In contrast to an omnipotent and all-powerful god which created the entire universe, both good and evil). If you are going to rework the article, you still have to somehow capture that evil and good were ruled by two separate "gods", and that one attacked the other one. I'm just worried about rewording some of these parts, unless you are basing it on reliable Manichaean sources. (If you are going to base it on reliable sources, then go ahead). "The Manichaean theology" section is still probably the worst part of the article - maybe you could re-do the Theology section, and talk about eschatology there? Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of definition that if good is bound to triumph over evil, they can't really be equal. Only minor changes to the article would be required to make this point. Skoojal (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Another claim that seems questionable is, 'The Manichaeans made every effort to include all known religious traditions in their faith.' While it is true that Manichaeism synthesised numerous different religious traditions, the claim that they wanted to include all religions they were aware of in their faith looks like speculation. This needs to be re-phrased at least. Skoojal (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That quote was also in the original article - it is probably from some old public domain source such as Runciman's book. There is quite a bit of modern scholarship available on Manichaeism - ideally the article would be updated based on the newer material. It is true, though, that wherever Manichaeans went, they attempted to incorporate local traditions into their religion - thus giving the impression that the local traditions actually sprang from the Manichaean story. (See for example, "The Book of Giants", where the names of the giants are incorporated with local myths in the Persian translations of the book).Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What seems to me basically wrong about the claim about the Manichaeans including all known religious traditions is that it is much too vague and broadly expressed. The expression 'religious traditions' need not mean the same thing as 'religions', since it could include specific traditions within a religion as well as different religions, and thus understood it would be wrong. Geo Widengren observes that Mani didn't synthesise simply 'Zoroastrianism', 'Buddhism', and 'Christianity', but a specific form of each of them, that is, Zurvanite Zoroastrianism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Marcionite Christianity. In any case, since the history of Manichaeism is incompletely known, I don't know how anyone could be sure that the Manichaeans attempted to synthesise absolutely all religions they ever encountered, without exception. Who is in a position to say that the Manichaeans could not have encountered Jainism, say, yet drawn nothing from it? The Manichaeans certainly encountered Islam, and as far as I know no one is suggesting they ever wanted to 'include it in their faith' (some strains of Islam apparently were influenced by Manichaeism, but that is a different issue).Skoojal (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, go ahead and change the article - it needs work anyway, and is missing internal references, for example. My only point was, that I believe the original article was just a conglomeration of quotes from older, public-domain works of Manichaean scholars (whose work is in some cases outdated). If some of that old material is removed, at least it should be replaced with more updated views from equally competent (albeit more recent) Manichaean scholars.Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Manichaean creation myth

There is a very good description of the Manichaean creation myth in Mircea Eliade's A History of Religious Ideas. I think it would be a good idea to suggest it as further reading in the Cosmogony section, giving a footnote to help properly reference the article. Skoojal (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Cosmogony section, it's not clear how much is quoted from Eliade - one paragraph is in block quote, the following three aren't. Are they all straight from the same book? Looks like the quotes aren't formatted correctly.Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire thing is from Eliade. As I recall, it wasn't me who placed the first part of that in block quotes. Skoojal (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If all those paragraphs are from Eliade, it probably should be in block quotes. (Unless it is a paraphrase of Eliade, it is impossible to tell). Also, it's probably not a good idea to quote entire paragraphs from one work (especially one that's not considered public domain). In my opinion, the Cosmogony section should be redone so that it is a general outline, where details can be filled in as new editors see fit. In this way, the cosmogony section can continue to grow, drawing details of the Manicheaan myth from a vast number of sources, instead of relying merely on Eliade's brief, generalized summary.

Also, I added some references for Runciman. I think most of the original article was from his book.

Additionally, I think the Theological section should be done away with - the beginning was a quote from Runciman, but the rest is simply someone trying to prove (very ineffectively), that Manichaeism is a form of Buddhism. Maybe the first paragraph could be salvaged and put in another section.Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticising and missing basic statements

I am opposing the root statement, thay Manicheism is "dualistic". Light and Darkness were never regarded as of equal importance, as the Darkness always proved inferior to those of the Light. I do not believe the theory was "rolled together" from other previous beliefs and sects, as there is no clear evidence on this.

I am also missing a clear statement that Manicheism was persecuted as was seen as "against Christinaism". I have not seen any idea why this religion was so abundant in so short period (why was it so "successful"?).

Finally, I am missing the derivation of this religion to arts, such as symbolism of Light Column, Light Wheel, Grape and Watermelon (the two fruits which most absorbs light). Abdulka (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Manichaeism may have regarded light as more powerful, but yes, it was dualistic. Skoojal (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

'Unlike the other Gnostic faiths'

The article reads, 'Unlike the other Gnostic faiths, Manichaeism was a revealed religion.' Should the article say this? It implies that no other Gnostic faiths were revealed religions, but I'm uncertain whether this is true and there is no source. Skoojal (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that part; it seems very dubious and problematic. Skoojal (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to simplify the article

I think the first three sections of this article should be consolidated into a single section: history. I also think that some of the material in these sections should be shifted into the sources section, where it might be more appropriate. Skoojal (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What I have done instead is to re-arrange those three sections into only two sections; a single section would probably be too long. Skoojal (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice of a major change I'm going to make

This article includes something that looks like a bibliography. Unfortunately, none of the items in that bibliography are used as references for claims in the article. Thus, as helpful as that list of books may be, its presence suggests that the article is far more scholarly and properly supported than it actually is, and so makes matters worse, not better. I am therefore going to remove it totally. In my opinion, items in that bibliography should be restored only if they are actually used to provide citations for claims in the article. Skoojal (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have had second thoughts about whether this was a good idea. It may be taking too harsh an approach to say that a book shouldn't be in the bibliography if they aren't used to source claims in the article (the list of books may be helpful to people who want to research the subject, and if they are there in the bibliography, then it might encourage someone to use them to properly source the article). I'm considering restoring the bibliography. Skoojal (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"First person" cleanup tag

I added the tag; I think that some of the "we"s used in the article aren't in the historical context that the Wikipedia style guide talks about. If I'm wrong then say your piece here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinderien (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right of course, the "we"s should be written out of the article. I may do that myself, though I've become rather side-tracked on other matters. Skoojal (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job, thanks for that. I took out the tag too. Reinderien 03:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinderien (talk • contribs)

In retrospect, {inappropriate person} would have been better, had I known it existed... Oh well. Reinderien 05:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinderien (talk • contribs)

Needs a scholarly reference

The term "Manichean" has sometimes been used in recent years to mean a simplistic good vs. evil worldview, but this has been argued by scholars to be a historically inaccurate description of Manichaesim.

This paragraph, which may be true needs a stronger reference that isn't merely a link to an editorial page article discussing a current event which is why I removed the external link.Awotter (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to Update Cosmogony Section, Improve Article

I think any relevant details from the Theology section should be moved to the Cosmogony section, and then the Theology section should be deleted (as it is a fairly useless jumble of unrelated paragraphs which aren't demonstrating anything).

As for the Cosmogony section, I propose it be turned into an outline of the Manichaean myth (for example, broken up according to "Two Principles", "Three Times", or something similar). If the Cosmogony is presented as an outline, then future editors can continue indefinitely to eleborate from the multiple sources of the Manichaean myth, in multiple languages. As a start, I was thinking of giving an outline of the myth from the original Syriac source, and providing all the Syriac names for the deities. Later editors can come along and add the names in other languages, whether they are Persian, Latin, Chinese, or whatever. This will also make possible a discussion on how the manichaean deities evolved and developed from place to place in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimhoward72 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)