Roman Bridge at Ferreiera on the Camino Primitivo, Galicia, Spain.
To try to understand the antipathy of the Christian heirarchy to Manichaeism it is worthwhile looking at some of its tenets.
Manichaeism (formerly spelt "Manichee" was named after Mani, the founder of the movement c. 216–276 AD). It taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. It seems to have been based on Mesopotamian gnosticism. It became one of the greatest 'threats' to orthodox Christianity. So much so that the name "Manichaean" became synonymous with "heretic" in the 4th and 5th centuries.
According to Mani, the unfolding of the universe takes place within three "creations". The spirit - "light" - is from the "world of light" and it is trapped in a material "earthly" body.
In the article in the Encyclopædia Britannica Online, it says:-
"Originally, good and evil existed in two completely separate realms, one the World of Light, ruled by the Father of Greatness, and the other the World of Darkness, ruled by the King of Darkness. At a certain point, the Kingdom of Darkness notices the World of Light, becomes greedy for it and attacks it.
As part of his creation the Father of Greatness sends the Radiant Jesus to awaken the original Adam, and to enlighten him to the true source of the light that is trapped in his material body. Adam and Eve, however, eventually copulate, and produce more human beings, trapping the light in bodies of mankind throughout human history.
In this cosmology the appearance of the Prophet Mani was another attempt by the World of Light to reveal to mankind the true source of the spiritual light imprisoned within their material bodies." (1)
As noted in a previous post (2), the Manicheans were condemned in both Tractates I and II. The question we must ask is "Why was the accusation of Manicheanism used so empatically against Priscillian and his followers?"
Virginia Burrus in her work - "The Making of a Heretic" says:-
"Priscillian's exegesis of canonical texts does support a mitigated dualism on both anthropological and cosmological fronts. Yet in spite of his ambiguous assessment of temporal and embodied existence, Priscillian distinguishes his understanding of the material cosmos sharply from that of the Manichaeans,[13] insisting not only on the ultimate goodness of the material and temporal creation[14] but also on the potential holiness of the human body as a dwelling place suitable for God.[15]" (3)
As Burrus notes, Priscillian explicitly denounces the Manichaeans in the first two Tractates. If, as Conti believes, Tractates IV - X are not the work of Priscillian, and that they can be dated "to the first phase of Priscillianism (A.D. 380 - 430)" (4), then we cannot use them to define the actual belief of Priscillian himself. They most likely reflect teaching given by the master and developed by his followers.
Even if we do wish to take the teaching as that of Priscillian, there is precedence for it in Canonical Scripture!
The Gospel of John has within it a "mitigated dualism" to use Burrus' phrase, especially in the teaching at the 'Last Supper' on "the ruler of this world". John 14 v. 30: 15 v. 18: 16 v.v. 11: 20: 33: 17 v.v. 14 - 16. This is made explicit in 1 John 5 v. 19. "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one."
Where we can perhaps see something of Manichaean teaching / practice in the first Tractates, is in Priscillian's practice of dividing his followers into those who can keep to a full ascetic way of life, and those who marry and seemingly are regarded as 'second class'!
"Only a portion of the faithful followed the strict ascetic life advocated in Manichaeism. The community was divided into the elect, who felt able to embrace a rigorous rule, and the hearers who supported the elect with works and alms." (1) (5)
The text of Tractate II. 34 - 46 explicitly deals with -
"those who . . . . , preferred to love God so far with their dignity and their soul rather than the world, and that we must not take the hope of forgiveness away from those who, if they are not able to [attain] those things which are first, are still staying on the second and the third, because 'many dwelling places were set up by God, . . . . [therefore] they must retain the hope offered to us in Christ, even though 'they have no ability to accomplish the perfect work' . . " (6)
If we read the Epistles of Paul carefully we will find that he too, does in actual fact, teach something along these lines! e.g. on marriage - I Corinthians 7 v.v. 32 - 40. especially verse 38 "So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage does better". !!!
So far, I have not found anything in the writings of definite Priscillian authorship which would label him as a Manichaean rather than an orthodox Christian.
Manichaeism (formerly spelt "Manichee" was named after Mani, the founder of the movement c. 216–276 AD). It taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness. It seems to have been based on Mesopotamian gnosticism. It became one of the greatest 'threats' to orthodox Christianity. So much so that the name "Manichaean" became synonymous with "heretic" in the 4th and 5th centuries.
According to Mani, the unfolding of the universe takes place within three "creations". The spirit - "light" - is from the "world of light" and it is trapped in a material "earthly" body.
In the article in the Encyclopædia Britannica Online, it says:-
"Originally, good and evil existed in two completely separate realms, one the World of Light, ruled by the Father of Greatness, and the other the World of Darkness, ruled by the King of Darkness. At a certain point, the Kingdom of Darkness notices the World of Light, becomes greedy for it and attacks it.
As part of his creation the Father of Greatness sends the Radiant Jesus to awaken the original Adam, and to enlighten him to the true source of the light that is trapped in his material body. Adam and Eve, however, eventually copulate, and produce more human beings, trapping the light in bodies of mankind throughout human history.
In this cosmology the appearance of the Prophet Mani was another attempt by the World of Light to reveal to mankind the true source of the spiritual light imprisoned within their material bodies." (1)
As noted in a previous post (2), the Manicheans were condemned in both Tractates I and II. The question we must ask is "Why was the accusation of Manicheanism used so empatically against Priscillian and his followers?"
Virginia Burrus in her work - "The Making of a Heretic" says:-
"Priscillian's exegesis of canonical texts does support a mitigated dualism on both anthropological and cosmological fronts. Yet in spite of his ambiguous assessment of temporal and embodied existence, Priscillian distinguishes his understanding of the material cosmos sharply from that of the Manichaeans,[13] insisting not only on the ultimate goodness of the material and temporal creation[14] but also on the potential holiness of the human body as a dwelling place suitable for God.[15]" (3)
As Burrus notes, Priscillian explicitly denounces the Manichaeans in the first two Tractates. If, as Conti believes, Tractates IV - X are not the work of Priscillian, and that they can be dated "to the first phase of Priscillianism (A.D. 380 - 430)" (4), then we cannot use them to define the actual belief of Priscillian himself. They most likely reflect teaching given by the master and developed by his followers.
Even if we do wish to take the teaching as that of Priscillian, there is precedence for it in Canonical Scripture!
The Gospel of John has within it a "mitigated dualism" to use Burrus' phrase, especially in the teaching at the 'Last Supper' on "the ruler of this world". John 14 v. 30: 15 v. 18: 16 v.v. 11: 20: 33: 17 v.v. 14 - 16. This is made explicit in 1 John 5 v. 19. "We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one."
Where we can perhaps see something of Manichaean teaching / practice in the first Tractates, is in Priscillian's practice of dividing his followers into those who can keep to a full ascetic way of life, and those who marry and seemingly are regarded as 'second class'!
"Only a portion of the faithful followed the strict ascetic life advocated in Manichaeism. The community was divided into the elect, who felt able to embrace a rigorous rule, and the hearers who supported the elect with works and alms." (1) (5)
The text of Tractate II. 34 - 46 explicitly deals with -
"those who . . . . , preferred to love God so far with their dignity and their soul rather than the world, and that we must not take the hope of forgiveness away from those who, if they are not able to [attain] those things which are first, are still staying on the second and the third, because 'many dwelling places were set up by God, . . . . [therefore] they must retain the hope offered to us in Christ, even though 'they have no ability to accomplish the perfect work' . . " (6)
If we read the Epistles of Paul carefully we will find that he too, does in actual fact, teach something along these lines! e.g. on marriage - I Corinthians 7 v.v. 32 - 40. especially verse 38 "So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage does better". !!!
So far, I have not found anything in the writings of definite Priscillian authorship which would label him as a Manichaean rather than an orthodox Christian.
We will let Ana Maria C.M. Jorge have the final word on this subject and look at Gnosticism in the next post.
"Can one say that Priscillianism was based on Manichaeism . . . . . . . ? This is a difficult question. The research that highlights these issues is generally based on Priscillianist writings – this is the case of the treatises that were compiled as part of the Würzburg corpus, most of which post-dated Priscillian’s death. . . . . . . We must bear the following in mind: while the theses contained in these texts are rooted in the ideas that Priscillian personally developed, they were written in other spatial/temporal contexts – such as Galicia – and concern practices that were observed by other Priscillianists . . . . . Perhaps one ought to distinguish between an initial phase of Priscillianism, which was restricted to his lifetime, and a second one following his death – i.e. the period in which his ideas developed in the neighboring ecclesiastical province." Her emphasis. (7)
(1) "Manichaeism" Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
<http://search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=51774&sctn=1&pm=1>
[Accessed October 2 2000].
(2) Wednesday, 6 November 2013 The Teaching of Priscillian - 4 - His statement of belief.
(3) Burrus. Virginia . The Making of a Heretic - Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford
N.B. Her footnotes [13], [14], [15] refer to Tractates 5 and 6. Priscillian's "mitigated dualism" cannot be proved from the Tractates (1 -3) ascribed to him by most scholars.
(4) Conti. pp. 15 - 17
(5) Augustine of Hippo was a Manichaean "Hearer" for some 10 years before his conversion to Christianity in A.D.386 / 7
(6) Opp cit pp. 71
(7) Jorge. Ana Maria C.M. . Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR). Portuguese Catholic University (UCP) 2006
[Accessed October 2 2000].
(2) Wednesday, 6 November 2013 The Teaching of Priscillian - 4 - His statement of belief.
(3) Burrus. Virginia . The Making of a Heretic - Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford
N.B. Her footnotes [13], [14], [15] refer to Tractates 5 and 6. Priscillian's "mitigated dualism" cannot be proved from the Tractates (1 -3) ascribed to him by most scholars.
(4) Conti. pp. 15 - 17
(5) Augustine of Hippo was a Manichaean "Hearer" for some 10 years before his conversion to Christianity in A.D.386 / 7
(6) Opp cit pp. 71
(7) Jorge. Ana Maria C.M. . Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR). Portuguese Catholic University (UCP) 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment