In his 2001 “Prolegomena to a Study of Women in Manichaeism,” Kevin Coyle noted the relative absence of scholarly interest in Manichaean women.[1] This in spite of the increased attention that has been paid to women in various bodies of early Christian literature[2] and the prominent role of female figures in both the ecclesiastical and theological architecture of the Manichaean movement. On the ecclesial level, we know, for instance, that women were part of the church as both Catechumens and Elect and that certain specific women were highly venerated in the Egyptian liturgy. Whereas on the theological level, female beings play a central role in the unfolding of the Manichaean cosmic drama. It is indeed notable that unlike the gnostic myth of the fall of Sophia, in which a female entity is ultimately to blame for the cosmogony, in the Manichaean version, the female demiurge engineers the cosmos as part of an elaborate divine stratagem of light-purification and redemption. Moreover, as Kevin Coyle also noted, Manichaean literature has so far evidenced little of the “misogynistic” tendencies we find in other types of early Christian writing. Still, in spite of all this, we cannot automatically assume that women were held in particularly high regard in a religious movement that operated in a highly patriarchal society. After all, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nonetheless, I would like to explore this question further by examining one particular Manichaean text—The Sermon on the Great War—in which a unique emphasis does seems to be placed on women by the author, revealing some rather striking attitudes to the place of women in the Manichaean community and revealing clues to the text’s historical milieu.
An
Inclusive Apocalypse
Contained within the Homilies
codex[3] of the Medinet Madi
manuscripts, the Manichaean Sermon on the Great War presents a vivid,
albeit fragmentary, vision of the end of days and the culmination of the great
cosmic struggle between Light and Darkness. It begins with an invocation of Mani
and the revealed wisdom he left to his disciples. How he gave them knowledge
and taught them the mysteries of the final separation. This knowledge, or “his
good” (ⲡϥⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲛ) as the
homilist states, he has notably bequeathed to “the orphans and widows” (ⲛⲛⲟⲣⲫⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲙⲛ ⲛⲭⲏⲣⲁ) (Hom
7.19). These terms could partly be meant to designate the followers that he is
leaving behind. As the end time approaches, however, none will be spared as the
common people flee from their villages and even the kings and nobles are brought
low (Homilies 9.7-18). Both married and unmarried women will suffer on
that day:
ⲛ̅ⲣⲩⲛⲉ ⲙ̅ⲛ̅ ⲛⲉⲧⲁⲩϫⲓ ϩⲉ̣ⲓ̣[…]ⲧ’ ⲛ̅ϩⲓⲁⲙⲉ
ⲉⲩⲛ̅ⲛⲏⲩ ⲁⲩ̣[ⲙ]ⲛ̅ⲧϭⲁⲩⲁⲛ: ⲡ̣[ϩⲟⲟ]ⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲙ̅ⲙⲟ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲑⲣ̅ⲧⲉ · ⲡⲉⲓⲡⲓⲣⲁⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲉ̣ⲧ̣[…]ϥⲛⲏⲩ
ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲁⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ: ⲉⲓⲥ ⲡϩⲟⲟⲩⲉ ϭⲉ ⲉⲧⲙ̅ⲙⲟ ϥ̣ⲛⲏⲩ
ϥⲁϫⲓ ϭⲁⲗ ⲉⲛ ϩ̅ⲛ̅ ⲧⲉϥϭⲓⲛⲉⲓ
|
The
virgins and those who have taken a husband […] the
women when they will come in slavery. That day of horror; this trial that […]
will come to everyone. Behold, therefore, that day will come and it will not
lie by its coming (Homilies 9.18-22)
|
“Freemen”
and “freewomen” will all be affected (Homilies 9.31), as will
“pregnant women and those who are nursing” (Homilies 10.22). It is
striking the degree to which the homilist seems to make a special effort to
include references to women as well as men, instead of simply referring to the
suffering of male subjects by default as we might well expect from an ancient
author. This already alerts us that this author has taken a particular
interest in the female members of the Manichaean community and is in stark
contrast to a text such as the first volume of Kephalaia which presents
numerous Elect and Catechumens as interlocutors, but never specifically
identifies any as female.
In spite of this gender-inclusive
rhetoric, the discourse takes a dramatic turn with a harsh condemnation of “the
cruel goddess of the fire” (Homilies 10.27), which the homilist equates
with the image of Babylon. In this context, Babylon, no doubt influenced by
biblical paradigms, represents the manifestation of evil in the world.
According to the homilist, is was she who “instituted the Sabbaths, the
festivals, and the fasts” of the Jews (Homilies 11.3-4). It was she who crucified
Jesus and whose temple was destroyed in Jerusalem (Homilies 11.14-16).
It is she who rules in the fire of the Magi (Homilies 11.17-18).
Throughout history, we are told, the apostles of God have been at war with her:
ⲁⲍⲁⲣⲁⲇⲏⲥ
ⲛⲁϫ̣ⲥ̣ [ⲁⲃⲁⲗ] ϩⲛ̅ ⲧⲃⲁⲃⲩⲗⲱⲛ· ⲁⲓ̈ⲏ̅ⲩ̅ⲥ̅ ⲛⲁϫⲥ’ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲛ̅ ⲑⲓⲉⲣⲟ[ⲩⲥⲁⲗⲏ]ⲙ̣: ϯⲛⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ϩⲱⲱϥ
ⲁⲩⲧⲛ̅ⲛⲁⲩ ⲁⲣⲁⲥ ⲙ̅ⲡⲙⲁϩ̣ϣ̣[ⲁⲙⲧ ⲛ̅]ⲁ̣ⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲡⲣⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲉ
|
Zarathustra
threw her out of Babylon, and Jesus threw her out of Jerusalem. And now, too,
has the third apostle been sent to her, the savior (Homilies 11.21-24)
|
In fact
her wickedness has no bounds, as she murders the king’s builders and gardeners,
warriors and messengers, wise-men and judges (Homilies 12.10-23). Worst
of all, she
ⲁⲥϣⲧⲉⲙ
[ⲁⲧ]ⲧⲁⲡⲣⲟ ⲛ̅ⲛⲓⲣⲙ̅ⲙ̅ⲙⲏⲉ· ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ’ ⲙ̅ⲡⲟⲩ[ⲁⲓ̈ⲛⲉ ⲁ]ⲃⲁⲗ ⲙ̅ⲕⲉⲕⲉ· ⲁⲥϩⲱⲧⲃⲉ ⲛ̅ⲛ̅ⲥⲁⲓ̈ⲉⲩⲉ·
ⲁⲥⲡⲱ̣[ϩⲧ] ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲙ̅ⲡⲥⲛⲁϥ ⲛ̅ⲛ̅ⲥⲁⲓ̈ⲏ
|
closed
[the] mouth of these truthful ones who separate [light] from darkness. She
killed the beautiful males (and) shed the blood of the beautiful females (Homilies
12.24-27).
|
It is
she who wages the “great war” against the Light by persecuting the Manichaean
community. The use of Babylon as the archetype of evil is somewhat incongruous
with the prestige which Mani is sometimes said to have attached to the city as
his place of origin (cf Homilies 54.14; 61.17), yet less so in the wake
of his execution at the hands of Persian authorities. In this apocalyptic
context the homilist is building upon the imagery of the Apocalypse of John, as
well as the Manichaean tendency to view the evil principle of Matter (ϩⲩⲗⲏ) as a feminine
entity.[4]
For instance, in the Berlin Kephalaia, Matter is identified as “the
Death-desire, which is [Mother] of them all” ([ⲧϩⲩ]ⲗ[ⲏ]
ϩⲱⲥ ⲧⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲑⲩⲙⲏⲥⲓⲥ ⲙ̅ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲁⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲧⲟⲩ[ⲙⲉⲩ] ⲧⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲟⲩ)
(26.33-27.6). It would seem then that there is a certain ambivalence in the
homilist’s mind between making special mention of the fate of females on the
last day and the essential femininity of the primordial evil that threatens
them, manifest in the world as the Whore of Babylon.
After this polemical digression, the
register then shifts back to a more humanistic focus. As the homilist laments the
coming fate of Manichaean women.
ⲉⲩⲁⲃⲱⲕ
ⲁⲧⲟ ⲉⲩⲁ … … [ϩⲙ̅ ⲡⲓⲛⲁϭ] ⲙ̅ⲡⲟⲗⲉⲙⲟⲥ: ⲉⲓ̈ⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲛ̅ⲛⲁⲡ̣ⲁ̣ⲣ̣ⲑ̣ⲉ̣[ⲛⲟⲥ ⲛ̅ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ] ⲛⲉⲧⲁⲩⲙⲉⲣⲓ
ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϩⲛ̅ ⲟⲩⲧⲟ̣ⲩⲃⲟ[…ⲡⲟⲩ] ⲥⲁⲓ̈ⲉ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ϩⲛ̅ ⲧⲉϥϩⲗ’ⲡ[ⲓⲥ] ⲉⲣⲉ ⲧ[… …] ⲉ ⲁⲧⲟ : ⲉⲓⲣⲓⲙⲉ
ⲛⲛⲁⲉⲅⲕⲣⲁⲧⲏⲥ̣ [… ⲛⲉⲧⲁⲩ] ⲧⲟⲩⲃⲟ ⲟⲩⲁⲉⲧⲟⲩ ⲙ̅ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲉϥⲥⲱ̣[ⲧⲉ … ϩⲙ̅ ⲡⲓ] ⲛⲁϭ ⲛ̅ϣⲧⲁⲣⲧⲣ̅ ⲉⲧⲁϣⲱⲡ̣ⲉ̣
ⲛⲓⲙ [… …] ⲧⲟⲩⲃⲟ : ⲉⲓ̈ⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲛ̅ⲛⲁⲭⲏⲣⲁ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲙ[ⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲩ ⲡⲉⲧⲁⲥ]ⲱⲧ ⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲧϥ̅ ⲁⲣⲁⲩ
|
Where
will they go? [Where] will they [… …] [in this great] war? I weep for my
[female] virgins who have loved God in purity […] [their] beauty in his hope,
where will [… …] I weep for my abstainers [… who have] purified themselves
for their savior [… in this] great trouble that will come about. Who [… …]
purity? I weep for my widows who [have no one that will] stretch his hand to
them (Homilies 17.4-12).
|
In this way, the
homilist fears for the female members of the community, in particular the
“virgins,” “abstainers,” and “widows,” as opposed to the mothers and wives
early said to suffer during the end times. The primary focus now appears to be
on the threat that will be posed to their chastity in the coming crisis. A time
when “[sisters] will lead their sisters astray” (Homilies 21.3-4) and
“elect will lead astray elect” (Homilies 21.7). In this time, even they
will cry “why were we born into the world?” (Homilies 21.17).
There is hope, however, as the Manichaean
church huddles together amid the world’s collapse. At this moment, says the
homilist,
ⲉⲩ̣ⲁ̣ⲛ̣[ⲟⲩ]ϩⲙⲉ
ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁ ⲙⲁ · ϩ̅ⲙ̅ⲙⲏϣⲉ [ⲛ̅ⲉⲅ]ⲕ̣ⲣⲁⲧⲏⲥ: ϩⲛ̅ⲏ̣ⲡⲥ’ ⲙ̅ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲩⲁⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ’: [ⲡⲁⲣ]ⲭ̣ⲏ̣ⲅⲟ̣ⲥ
ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙ̣̅ⲛ̣̅ ⲛ̅ⲥⲁϩ · ⲙ̅ⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲁⲩ[ⲱ ⲛ̅ϣⲙϣⲉⲧⲉ] ⲧⲏ̣[ⲣⲟⲩ] ⲙ̣̅[ⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲛ̅ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ
ⲙ̅ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ⲉ̣[ⲅⲕⲣⲁⲧⲏ]ⲥ · ⲛ̅ⲕⲁⲧⲏ̣ⲭⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲙ̣̅ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ⲉⲩⲥⲩⲅⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ̣
|
They
will be saved in every place. Multitudes [of] abstainers, numbers of virgins
will appear—[the] leaders and the teachers, the presbyters [and all the
deacons], the female virgins and the abstainers, the catechumens and their
relatives (Homilies 22.3-7)
|
Here they will
comfort one-another. “The virgin will cling to her fellow-virgin and explain
[her] sigh to [her]” and “the abstainer will proclaim to [her fellow] abstainer
all the sufferings she bore” (Homilies 22.14-17). Again, a special
effort is made to suggest that male and female community members will
come to their mutual aid and comfort.
Finally, we are given a utopian vision of the new age, when “the
(female) elect will sleep and arise in [the house] of the queens and the noble
ladies” (Homilies 24.9-10), singing songs of glory in every land and
reading the scriptures of the Apostle of Light. Moreover, the homilist
proclaims:
ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲙⲉ[ⲓ̈ⲉ
ⲙ̅] ⲡ̣ⲁⲛⲁⲅⲛⲱⲥⲧⲏⲥ ϣⲁ ⲟⲩⲏⲣ · ⲉⲣⲉ ϩⲛ̅ϣⲟ ⲛ[ⲏⲩ] ⲁ̣ϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁⲣⲁϥ̣ : ⲛ̅ϩⲁⲩⲧ’ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲙ̅ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ϩⲓⲁⲙⲉ
· [ⲙ̅ⲙⲏ]ϣⲉ ⲙⲏϣⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ : ⲛ̅ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥ̣[ⲓⲁ] ⲙ̅ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ⲏⲓ̈ ⲛ̅[ⲛ̅]ⲕⲁⲧⲏⲭⲟⲩⲙⲉⲛⲟⲥ
· ⲥⲉⲛⲁⲣ̅ ⲑⲉ [ⲛ̅ⲛⲓ]ⲁⲛⲥⲏⲃ̣ ⲛ̅ⲧ̣ⲥⲃⲱ : ⲕ̣ⲁϭⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲯⲁⲗⲉ ⲉⲩ[…] ϩⲩⲙⲛⲟⲥ̣ […] ⲛ̅ⲱ… ⲡⲁⲣ̣ϩ̣ⲏⲥⲓⲁ
ⲙ̅ⲡⲙ̅ⲧⲟ̣ ⲛ̣[…] ⲛⲛⲓ̣ [… …] ⲟ̣ⲥ̣.ⲩ̣ [… … …] ⲉⲩϣⲁ̣[ⲛ]ⲟⲩⲱ · ⲙ̅ⲛ̅ ⲡ̣ϭⲣ[…] ⲙ̅ⲡⲟ̣[…
…] ⲙ̅ⲡ̣ⲁ̣ϫⲁⲓ̈ⲥ’ ⲡⲙⲁⲛ̣ⲛⲓⲭⲁⲓⲟⲥ: ⲕⲁϭⲛ̅ⲧⲟ̣[ⲩ] ⲧ̣ⲏ̣[ⲣⲟⲩ] ⲛ̅ⲛⲁϭ ⲙ̅ⲛ̅ ⲛⲕⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ · ⲟⲩⲙⲏϣⲉ
ⲛ̅ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲛ̣̅ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ [ⲛ̅ⲕⲁ]ⲧⲏⲭ̣ⲟ̣ⲩⲙⲉⲛⲟⲥ: ⲉⲩⲁⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲧⲇⲓⲕⲁⲓⲟⲥⲩⲛⲏ [ⲕⲁⲧⲁ] ⲡⲟⲗ[ⲓⲥ]: ⲕ̣ⲁϭⲛ̅
ⲛ̅ⲕⲟⲩⲓ̈ ⲛ̅ⲗⲓⲗⲁⲩⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ ⲉ[ⲩϫⲓ] ⲥⲃⲱ ⲁⲥϩ̣ⲉ̣ⲓ̈ ⲉⲩⲣ̅ⲯⲁⲗⲉ ⲉⲩⲱϣ
|
How
greatly will they [love] the reader, since thousands will [come] (to) visit
him, male and female, [masses] and masses in every city! The churches and
[the] catechumen’s houses will be like schools. You will find them singing
psalms and […] hymns […] publically in the presence of [… … … …] if they
cease, and the […] of the Lord Mannichaios. You will find them [all], the
great and the small, a large number of children of [the] catechumens, being
given to righteousness [in every] city. You will find the little girls,
[being] taught to write and singing psalms and reading” (Homilies
30.27-31.7)
|
This last detail
is most striking in the homilist vision of the redeemed cosmos. Not only are Manichaean
women given a special place in the new reality, but female literacy (something
which many in our current world find so incredible dangerous and threatening)
is offered as a hallmark of the final defeat of the powers of darkness.
As we can see, the homilist places a
deliberate and particular emphasis on the fate of Manichaean females—Elect and
Catechumens, Virgins and Abstainers, women and girls. The default masculine is
studiously avoided in favor of an equal opportunity salvation, a time when
“brother will look after brother, sister after sister” (Homilies 30.6). At
the same time, however, the types of women who are highlighted—virgins, widows,
abstainers, girls—are all figures that fall outside the procreative function.
Yet, there seems to be a conscious avoidance of the complete negation of
the feminine that we find in other ascetic contexts such as the much debated
final saying of the Gospel of Thomas, where “every woman who makes
herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven” (logion 114) or the Dialogue
of the Savior were Judas calls for the “works of the female” to be
destroyed (NHC III,5.145). Something here has shifted. In the Manichaean
kingdom, the femininity of the redeemed women is preserved, valued, and even
emphasized.
The “Autonomy of Chastity”
Why would the homilist do this? What
would have motivated him (or her!) to such a radical re-imagining of reality? While
Kevin Coyle has elsewhere suggested that the Manichaean elect conceived of
themselves as “ultra-sexual,”[5] that is beyond the
constraints of gendered differences, the Sermon on the Great War seems
intent on highlighting and preserving gender distinctions. As already noted, women
are highlighted elsewhere in Coptic Manichaean literature, not only in the Psalm-Book
doxologies, but also in the litany of venerated women from the same
collection (Ps 192.21-32)[6]:
ⲟⲩϩⲁⲩϣⲛⲉ ⲧⲉ ⲙⲁⲣⲓϩⲁⲙⲁ̣
ⲉϭⲱⲣϭ ⲁⲡⲕⲉⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲩⲏⲉ
ⲉⲧⲥⲁⲣⲙⲉ
ⲛⲉⲟⲩⲛ̅
ⲟⲩϩⲣⲉϥϣⲙ̅ϣⲉ ⲉⲥⲣⲁⲩⲧ ⲧⲉ
ⲙⲁⲣⲑⲁ ⲧⲉⲥⲕⲁⲓⲥⲱⲛⲉ
ϩⲛ̅ⲉⲥⲁⲩ ⲛ̅ⲥⲧⲙⲏⲧ ⲛⲉ
ⲥⲁⲗⲱⲙⲏ ⲙⲛ̅ⲁⲣⲥⲉⲛⲟⲏ
ⲟⲩⲣⲉϥⲕⲁⲧⲁⲫⲣⲟⲛⲏ ⲙ̅ⲡ̣ⲥⲱⲙⲁ̣ ⲡⲉ
ⲑⲉⲕⲗⲁ ϯⲙⲁⲓ̈ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲟⲩⲣⲉϥϯ ϣⲓⲡⲉ ⲛ̅ⲫⲁϥ ⲧⲉ
ⲙⲁⲝⲓⲙⲓⲗⲗⲁ ϯⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ
ⲟⲩⲣⲉϥϫⲓ ϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲁⲧⲛⲁϥⲣⲉ ⲧⲉ
ⲓⲫⲓⲇⲁⲙⲁⲥ ⲧⲉⲥⲕⲁⲓⲥⲱⲛⲉ
[ⲥ]ϣⲧⲉⲕⲁⲧ
ⲁⲛⲓϣⲧⲉⲕⲱⲟⲩ
ⲟⲩⲥⲁⲓ̈ϫ ⲉⲥϩⲛ̅ ⲡⲁⲅⲱⲛ ⲧⲉ
ⲁⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲃⲟⲩⲗⲁ ϯϩⲁⲣϣ̅ϩⲏⲧ
ⲟⲩⲣⲉϥϯ ⲟⲩⲁⲓ̈ⲛⲉ ⲛ̅ϭⲉ ⲧⲉ
ⲉⲩⲃⲟⲩⲗⲁ ϯⲉⲩⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ
ⲉⲥⲥⲱⲕ ⲙ̅ⲡϩⲏⲧ ⲙ̅ⲡϩⲏⲅⲉⲙⲱⲛ
ⲟⲩⲥⲁⲃⲏ̣ ⲙ̅ⲙⲁⲓ̈ⲥⲁϩ ⲧⲉ
ⲇⲣⲟⲩⲥⲓⲁⲛⲏ ϯⲙⲁⲓ̈ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲉⲥⲏⲗ [ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛⲓⲇ̅]
ⲛ̣ϩⲟⲟⲩⲉ
ⲉⲥϣⲓⲛ[ⲉ] ⲥⲁ ⲡⲥ̅ⲁ[ⲡⲟ]ⲥⲧⲟⲗ[ⲟ]ⲥ
|
Mariam is a net-caster,
hunting
eleven other wanderers.
[refrain]
There were.
A joyous servant is
Martha
her sister.
Obedient sheep are
Salome
and Arsenoe
A despiser of the body is
Thecla,
the god-lover.
A serpent-shamer is
faithful
Maximilla.
A bearer of good news is
Iphidama,
her sister,
imprisoned
in these prisons.
A champion is
Aristoboula,
the enduring.
A light-giver is
the noble
Eubula,
leading
astray the governor.
A wise teacher-lover is
Drusiane,
the god-lover,
confined
[for 14] days,
looking
for the apostle.
|
Each of these
figures, from both canonical and non-canonical traditions, are presented as
paradigms of feminine virtue. Moreover, as in the case of Jesus himself, women are
also key figures in the passion story of Mani. For instance, in the Section
on the Crucifixion also from the Homilies codex, we have the three
women who came to weep over the body of Mani (Homilies 59.2-10):
ⲧⲟⲧⲉ̣ ⲁⲩ̣[ⲃⲱⲕ] ⲁ̣ϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲁϫⲱϥ· ⲛ̅ϫⲓ ϣⲁⲙⲧⲉ
ⲛⲕⲁⲧ[ⲏⲕⲟⲩⲛⲉⲛⲏ] ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲡ̣ⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ: ⲃⲁⲛⲁⲕ, ⲇⲓⲛⲁⲕ ⲙⲛ̅ ⲛ̣[…] ⲁⲩϩⲙⲉⲥⲧ ϩⲁⲧⲏϥ ⲁⲩⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲁϫⲱ̣ϥ̣
[ⲁⲩⲕⲁ ⲛⲟⲩϭⲓϫ] ⲁϫⲛ̅ ⲛⲉϥⲃⲉⲗ· ⲁⲩϣⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩ ϫⲉ ⲛⲉⲩⲃⲣ̅ⲃⲱ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩ… ⲉ]ⲡⲓⲇⲏ ⲛ̅ⲧⲁⲣⲉ ⲧϥ̅ⲯⲩⲭⲏ
ⲉⲓ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ [ϩⲙ̅ ⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁ …]ϥ ⲡⲉ: ⲁⲩⲣ̅ⲁⲥⲡⲁⲍⲉ ⲛ̅ⲧϥⲧⲁⲡⲣ̣[ⲟ…] ⲉ̣ⲩⲣⲓⲙⲉ ⲁϫⲱϥ ⲉⲩϫⲱ ⲙ̅ⲙⲁⲥ: ⲡⲛ[ⲓ̈ⲱⲧ
ⲟⲩⲉⲛ ⲁ]ⲛⲉⲕⲃⲉⲗ ⲛ̅ⲕⲓ̈ⲱⲣⲙⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥⲱⲛ
|
Then they came to
him, three (female) catechumens of the Faith: Banak, Dinak and [Nushak?].
They sat beside him, wept, and [put their hands] on his eyes. They closed
them so that they might not … For when his soul left [the body] … They kissed
his mouth … weeping over him, and saying: “Our [Father, open] your eyes and
look at us.
|
Clearly modelled
on the three Marys of the gospel tradition, the homilist then instructs the
reader, “bless these women, thank and worship them!” (Homilies 59.21-23).
Aside from such literary and hagiographic presentations, we have
ample evidence of “real” Manichaean women, especially in the documentary texts from
Kellis—some of these letters even written by them. Here we have a number of
women filling traditional ancient gender roles—mothers, daughters, wives,
sisters—although the exact familial relationship between these individuals is
sometimes hard to establish or distinguish from ecclesiastical ones.
One such letter (P. Kell. Copt. 31) is addressed to
ⲛⲁϣⲉⲣⲉ
ⲙ̅ⲙⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉ ⲉⲧ’ⲧⲉⲓ̈ⲁⲧ’ ⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲧ ⲧⲟⲛⲟⲩ ⲙ̅ⲙ̣ⲉ̣ⲗ̣ⲟⲥ ⲛ̅ⲧⲉⲕ’ⲕⲗ̣ⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲃⲉ [ⲛ̅ϣⲉⲣⲉ] ⲙ̣̅ⲡ̣ⲛⲟⲩⲥ
ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲁⲓ̈ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉ̣[ⲧⲏⲡ ⲁⲛ ⲙ]ⲛ̅ ⲛ̅ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ̅ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ· ⲙ̣ⲯ[ⲩ]ⲭⲁ̣ⲩⲉ ⲉⲧⲥⲙⲁⲙⲁⲧ ⲙ̅ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲙ̅ⲙⲁⲓ̈ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲛⲁϣⲉⲣⲉ ⲛ̅ⲥϩⲟⲛⲁ
|
My
beloved daughters, who are greatly esteemed by me, the members of the Holy
Church, [the daughters] of the Light Mind, they who [are also counted] among
the children of God, the favored, blessed, God-loving souls, my daughters.
|
The anonymous
“father” of the letter praises the women as “helpers,” “patrons,” and “pillars”
before requesting some quantities of oil. Iain Gardner suspects that this oil
may be some kind of offering and that its anonymity is due to it being a
“circular” or “chain-letter.”[7] It is difficult to say.
The anonymity could also be a sign of danger. After all the author writes that
he is “praying to God every hour that he will guard you for a long time, free
from anything evil of the wicked world” and urges the recipients not to hold on
to the letter, lest it “fall into somebody’s hands.” Another letter (P.
Kell. Copt. 37), written by a certain Ammon, refers to the “grief that
overcame me, and the heartbreak that seized me, when I heard about what
happened; namely that they shook those of this word.”
It would seem then that the Manichaean community of Egypt existed in
a somewhat precarious state. In the early 4th century, certainly
after the Edict of Diocletian in 302, Manichaeans were under increasing
pressure from both state and ecclesiastical authorities. One of the perceived
dangers, at least from proto-orthodox Christians, was in fact the promient
presence of women in the movement. Yet, the women of the Kellis community
appear to be mostly Catechumens, while those praised by the homilist were
Elect. Women who may have sought what Virgina Burrus has called the “autonomy
of chastity” characteristic of the ascetic movement more broadly.[8] It is this category of
Manichaean women that attracted the most scorn from the church fathers. Jerome,
for instance, in his 22nd Letter to Eustochium, compared
Manichaean women to prostitutes,[9] attempting to undermine their
claims to ascetic chastity:
Et quam viderint tristem atque pallentem,
miseram et monacham et Manicheam vocant, et consequenter; tali enim proposito
ieiunium heresis est. Hae sunt, quae per publicum notabiliter incedunt et
furtivis oculorum nutibus adulescentium gregem post se trahunt, quae semper
audiunt per prophetam: ‘Facies meretricis facta est tibi, impudorata es tu.”
|
When they see a woman with a pale sad face, they call her ‘a miserable
Manichaean nun’, and quite logically too, for on their principles fasting is
heresy. As they walk the streets they try to attract attention and with
stealthy nods and winks draw after them troops of young men. Of them the
prophet’s words are true: ‘You have a whore’s forehead; you refuse to be
ashamed.’
|
Similarly,
Epiphanius, portrayed Mani’s alleged forerunner, Scythianus, as a charlatan who
married a prostitute (Panarion 66). An account clearly modelled on the
heresiological legend of Simon the Magician and his consort Helen (Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 1.23). Moreover, Epiphanius claimed that Mani (or rather, Cubricus,
as he called him) was an orphan adopted by a foolish old woman (Panarion
66). These are just the sort of people that Mark the Deacon, in his account of
a debate between a female elect named Julia and bishop Porphyry of Gaza,
claimed were attracted to Manichaean teaching:[10]
καὶ γὰρ τὸ μάθημα αὐτῶν τοῖς γε νοῦν ἔχουσιν πεπλήρωται πάσης βλασφημίας καὶ καταγνώσεως καὶ γραώδων μύθων ἐφελκομένων γυναικάρια καὶ παιδιώδεις ἄνδρας κοῦφον ἔχοντας τόν τε λογισμόν καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν
|
For their
teaching, at least for those in their right minds is full of every blasphemy,
contemptuous opinion, and old wives’ tales, attracting only feeble women and
childish men, light on reason and understanding.
|
Here, too, the
rhetoric is telling in that Mark attempts to discredit his hero’s opponents by
reference to two of antiquity’s most marginalized and disempowered groups—women
and children. Precisely the two groups that the author of the Sermon on the
Great War makes a place for in the age-to-come. The homilist seeks to
re-assure the women of their importance to the movement and their right to
secure a place within its apocalyptic narrative. In this our author is
following the counsel of Mani himself, who in a letter also found at Kellis (P.
Kell. Copt. 54)[11] instructs his followers, both male and female, to “love one
another”:
ⲛ̣̅[ⲥⲁϩ
ⲙ]ⲉⲣⲓ ⲛ̅ⲥⲁϩ · ⲛ̅ⲥⲁⲃⲉⲟⲩⲉ · ⲛ̅ⲛⲥ̣[ⲁⲃⲉ]ⲟⲩⲉ · ⲛ[ⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕ]ⲟ̣ⲡⲟⲥ · ⲛ̅ⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ · ⲛ̅ⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧ̣[ⲏⲥ]
· ⲛ̅ⲙ̅ⲙ[ⲁⲑⲏⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲥ · ⲛ̅ⲥⲁⲛ · ⲛ̅ⲛ̅ⲥⲁⲛ · ⲛ̅ⲥⲱⲛⲉ ⲁ[ⲛ ⲛ̅]ⲛ̅ⲥⲱ[ⲛⲉ]· [ⲛ̅]ⲧⲉⲧⲛ̅ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲧⲏⲣⲧⲛ̅
· ⲛ̅ϩⲓⲛ[ϣⲏ]ⲣⲉ ⲛ̅ⲛ̣[ⲟⲩⲥ]ⲱ̣ⲛⲁ ⲛ̅ⲟⲩⲱⲧ ⲛ̅ⲁⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ
|
The
[teachers] will love the teachers, the wise ones (will love) the wise ones,
the bishops (will love) the bishops, the disciples (will love) the disciples,
the brothers (will love) the brothers, also the sisters (will love) the
sisters
—you will all become children of a single
undivided body.
|
It is also
interesting to note the dramatic tension evoked by this precarious situation in
the mind of the homilist. On the one hand, the status and chastity of the Manichaean
women is highlighted and valued, while on the other, the cosmic force that
threatens to undermine that status and chastity is personified as the
profoundly unchaste Whore of Babylon. Conversely, to opponents of the movement
such as Jerome, the roles are reversed and it is the moral corruption of
Manichaean women that is caste as a threat to women of his own theological
faction. In both cases, the sexualization of evil is employed as a powerful
rhetorical trope, as one early Christian group seeks to marginalize its rivals.
Enkratites
in Context
While it is
clear that the author of the Sermon on the Great War places a unique
emphasis on women in his apocalyptic vision, does this really tell us anything
about the Manichaean community of Egypt? It is often tempting to view Coptic
Manichaean texts as reflective of a specifically Egyptian milieu, but this
approach is difficult to sustain. All we really know is that the Medinet Madi
manuscripts were read and used as part of the liturgy of an Egyptian community,
but there is mounting evidence of a Syriac substratum to that community.[12] In fact, both Koenen and
Petersen have identified elements of the Sermon that point to a
“Babylonian” environment,[13] that is, the heartland of
the original Manichaean movement.
Thus, the more likely context for the female-focused rhetoric of the
Sermon on the Great War is the increased pressure and marginalization
being experienced by the Manichaean church in the aftermath of Mani’s execution
in 277 CE. Moreover, the ascetic tone of the discourse bears many of the
hallmarks of Syrian asceticism native to the region. After all, one of the key
groups of women that the homilist describes are called ⲉⲅⲕⲣⲁⲧⲏⲥ, or enkratites, a label applied since the second
century CE to a Syrian sect who, according to Irenaeus, “preached against
marriage, thus setting aside the original creation of God, and indirectly
blaming him who made the male and female for the propagation of the human race”
(Against Heresies 1.28). Such anti-cosmic values and denial of
procreation imbued the early Manichaean church, particularly the Elect, and
drove its proto-monastic programme. As Mani states in Kephalaia Chapter
85 (212.22-28):[14]
ⲙⲡⲣⲏⲧⲉ
ⲛⲧⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲃⲉ ⲧⲉⲧⲉϣⲁⲣⲉ ⲡⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲥⲙ̣ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲥ̣ ϩⲙ̅ ⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲭⲱ̣ⲣⲓⲥ ϩⲓⲥⲉ ϩⲓ
ⲙ̅ⲕⲁϩ ⲙⲁⲣⲉ ⲛⲉⲕⲗⲉⲕⲧⲟⲥ ϭⲛϭⲁⲙ ⲛ̅ⲣⲃⲁⲗ ⲁ̣ⲃⲁⲗ ⲁⲡⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲗⲗⲁ ⲉⲓⲙⲏⲧⲓ ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲥⲕⲉⲯⲓⲥ ⲛ̅[ⲧⲛⲏⲥⲧⲓ]ⲁ
ⲙⲛ̅ ⲧⲁⲡϣⲗⲏⲗ ⲙⲛ̅ ⲧⲁⲧⲉⲅⲕⲣⲁⲧⲉⲓⲁ ⲙⲛ̅ ⲧⲁⲧⲙⲛⲧⲛ̣[ⲁⲉ] ⲙⲛ̅ ⲧⲁⲧⲙⲛⲧⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲏⲥ ⲙⲛ̅ ⲧⲁⲛⲁⲭⲱⲣⲏⲥⲓⲥ
ⲙⲡⲗ̣[ⲏⲅⲏ] ⲙⲛ ⲛ̅ϣⲥⲛ̅ⲧⲁⲩⲣⲉⲁ ⲧⲁⲥⲕⲏⲥⲓ̣ⲥ ⲛ̅ⲙ̅ⲙⲣⲣⲉ ⲡⲙⲟⲩ ⲙ̣[ⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩ]ⲣⲟⲥ
|
Thus, the Holy Church which the Apostle established
in the world: without toil and suffering the Elect will not be able to be
free from the world, but rather, by consideration of fasting and prayer and abstinence
(enkrateia) and alms and only-begottenness and with-drawal (anachōrēsis), wounds and lashings,
the discipline (askēsis) of bonds, (and) martyrdom
|
Such a
statement, laced with ascetic terminology, evokes the need for the Elect to
transcend the things that bind them to the cosmos, to tame the body, and to
deny themselves even unto death—as their master had done before them. As a
reward, our homilist has seen not a time when sexual difference will be
definitely erased, but permanently controlled. Namely, brought under the rule
of enkrateia. This is a time, we might say, when the Elect will neither
marry nor be given in marriage, but will find their rest like angels in heaven
(Mt 22:30).
In the end, however, the Sermon on the Great War can and
should be read as yet another front in the late antique war over women,
procreation, and sexual ethics, whereby the honor and/or shame attributed to
the women of a religious community is seen to have profound cosmic
implications. A rhetoric that is both ancient and remote, yet unsettlingly modern
and familiar.
[1] Kevin J. Coyle, “Prolegomena to a Study of Women in Manichaeism,”
in Manichaeism and its Legacy, Leiden: Brill, 2009, pp. 141-2.
Originally published in Mirecki and BeDuhn (eds.), The Light and the
Darkness: Studies in Manichaeism and Its World, Leiden: Brill, pp. 79-92.
[2] Fiorenza E. Schüssler, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological
Reconstruction of Christian Origins, New York: Crossroad, 1983; Elizabeth
A. Clark, Women in the Early Church, Wilmington, Del: M. Glazier, 1983;
Ben Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1988; Karen J Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Women's
Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the
Rise of Christianity, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993; David M.
Scholer, Women in Early Christianity, New York: Garland Pub, 1993; Susanna
Elm, Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity, New
York: Oxford University Press, 1994; Gillian Clarke, This Female Man of God:
Women and Spiritual Power in the Patristic Age, AD 350-450, New York:
Routledge, 1995; Margaret Y. MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan
Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996; Patricia C. Miller, Women in Early Christianity: Translations
from Greek Texts, Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press,
2005; Madeleine Scopello, Femme, Gnose, et Manichéisme : De l’espace mythique au
territoire du réel,
Leiden : Brill, 2005; Nicola Denzey Lewis, The
Bone Gatherers: The Lost Worlds of Early Christian Women, Boston, Mass:
Beacon Press, 2007; Kim Haines-Eitzen, The Gendered Palimpsest: Women,
Writing, and Representation in Early Christianity, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2011.
[3] The present analysis is based on the new edition of the text by Nils
Arne Pedersen, Manichaean Homilies, Turhout: Brepols, 2006.
[4] Matter (ὕλη) as the antithesis of God is somewhat harder to pin
down in what remains of Mani’s own writings. In fact, it is so far unattested.
Ephraim wrote that “if Mani and Bardaisan designate (their) creators as ‘god,’
perhaps the way is open for them to designate Matter as well, since it is the
cause for creation, as they assert” (Reeves, “Manichaean Citations from the Prose Refutations of
Ephrem” in Emerging from Darkness: Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean
Sources (ed. Mirecki and BeDuhn; Leiden: Brill, 1997, p. 238) although this reads as
somewhat hypothetical. For Serapion of Thmuis, the primary opposition is
between “God” and “Satan” (Against the Manichaeans 12, 26; Lieu, Greek and Latin Sources on
Manichaean Cosmogony and Ethics, Turnhout: Brepols, 2010, p. 50-51), a dichotomy also found
in the Letter of Mani to Menoch preserved by Augustine (Lieu, Greek and Latin, 12-13), as well as in the
account of al-Nadim in which the ruler of the realm of Darkness is al-Shaytan
(B. Dodge, The Fihrist
of Al-Nadīm: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture, New York: Columbia
University Press, 1970, p. 778). Even one of Mani’s letters from the Kellis documents
makes specific reference to Satan (P. Kell. Copt. 53 43.12; Gardner, Kellis Literary Texts Volume 2). Matter, however, does
occur relatively frequently in the Coptic sources, where it is said to be the
“bad tree” (1Ke 22.32) and the feminine power who created the King of Darkness
(1Ke 27.13-18), as well as the “Mother of this world” (Ps 221.5-6). From the
Kellis finds, P. Kell. Gr. 97 refers to “dark matter” (τὴν σκοτινὴν ὕλην) (B.I v 9) (Gardner,
Kellis Literary Texts Volume 2) and T. Kell. Copt. 4 alludes to “deceitful
matter” (ⲑⲩⲗⲏ ⲛϩⲁⲗⲃⲉ) (51 [Gardner, Kellis Literary Texts Volume 1,
Oxford: Oxbow, 1996]).
[5] “Women and Manichaeism’s Mission to the Roman Empire,” in Manichaeism
and Its Legacy, Leiden: Brill, 2009, p. 194, 205.
[6] Gregor Wurst, Psalm Book: Pt. II, Fasc. 1, Turnhout:
Brepols, 1996; C.R.C. Allberry, A Manichaean Psalm-Book: Part II.
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938; Gregor Wurst, Psalm Book: Pt. II, Fasc.
1, Turnhout: Brepols, 1996.
[7] Iain Gardner, Anthony Alcock, and Wolf-Peter Funk (eds), Coptic
Documentary Texts from Kellis, Volume I, Oxbow, 1999, p. 207.
[8] Coyle, “Prolegomena,” 153.
[9] Jerome, Letter 22 (Jerome: Select
Letters, Loeb 262, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933, p. 81).
[10] Life of Porphyry of Gaza,
85 in Iain Gardner and S.N.C. Lieu (eds.), Manichaean Texts from the Roman
Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 126; Marci
Diaconi: Vita Porphyrii episcopi Gazensis (Leipzig: Teubner, 1885).
[11] Iain Gardner (ed.), Kellis Literary Texts: Volume 2, Oxford:
Oxbow Books, 2007, p. 89.
[12] For instance, the Coptic-Syriac glossaries from Kellis (Gardner, Kellis
Literary Texts: Volume 1).
[13] Nils Arne Pederson, Studies in the Sermon on the Great War
(Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1996, p. 81-3).
