ABSTRACT
Like Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism had its origins in Persia, but unlike Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism was a very recent development about whose founder much more evidence is available. Mani (216-274/6) was born and grew up in Babylonia as part of a Judaising Christian community which placed particular emphasis on ritual purification, but in his mid-20s he claimed to receive special revelations that prompted him to break with this religious group and begin teaching these revelations to any who would listen. Mani’s teaching presented world history in terms of a struggle between Light and Darkness, between Good and Evil. Although this dualism, together with his geographical context, might suggest the influence of Zoroastrianism, he also taught that the material world was evil and corrupt – a view which shows that his fundamental debt was to Gnosticism (cf. 2.9 and Lieu 1992: 7-32, 51-70). According to Mani, the self-styled ‘apostle of Jesus Christ’ and ‘Paraclete’ or ‘helper’ (a term used in the New Testament of the Holy Spirit), every individual had within him or herself particles of Light that could be released by following a strict ascetic lifestyle involving abstention from sex and adherence to a vegetarian diet (certain kinds of vegetable were believed to contain particularly strong concentrations of these particles). The ‘Elect’ who adhered to this regime would facilitate the gradual triumph of Light over Darkness at a cosmic level, while also ensuring their own salvation after death. There was also a second grade of adherent – ‘Hearers’ – whose task was to serve the Elect but who were not expected to live up to such high standards (the most famous example being the young Augustine). Mani’s message gradually gained followers within Persia, from where it was actively spread further afield both eastwards to India and eventually China, and westwards into the Roman empire. Mani himself travelled widely and was also viewed
favourably within Persia during the reigns of Shapur I (240-72) and Hormizd I (272-3), but probably at the instigation of the Zoroastrian chief priest Kirder (cf. 9.1), he was imprisoned by their successor Vahram I (273-6) and executed. The appeal of his message, however, remained undiminished (for the nature of its appeal, see Lieu 1992: ch. 5).
