From Illahun to Djeme

Papers Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft

Edited by

Eszter Bechtold
András Gulyás
Andrea Hasznos

BAR International Series 2311

2011
Published by

Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2311

From Illahun to Djeme. Papers Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011

ISBN 978 1 4073 0894 4

Printed in England by Infomation Press, Oxford

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
 The protagonist-catalogues of the apocryphal Acts of Apostles
in the Coptic Manichaica –– a re-assessment of the evidence1

Gábor Kósa

Abstract

According to the presently accepted scholarly opinion, during the 4th–6th centuries Manichaeans widely read and intensively used
the so-called Christian apocryphal works, especially the five most important apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. The general opinion
is mainly based on the polemic writings of the church fathers and a very small number of original Coptic Manichaean texts. In this
essay, I challenge this unanimously acknowledged judgment and claim that a closer analysis of the data retrieved from the original
Coptic material makes a contrary conclusion more likely. As far as some characters in the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, Andrew, John,
Peter, and Paul, are concerned, they indeed appear in two psalm-cycles of the Coptic Manichaean Psalm-Book (Psalms of Heracleides,
Psalmoi Sarakōtōn). In both cases, however, the author’s obvious intention was to provide historical exempla as consolation for
the contemporary believers in times of persecution and, in the case of the apocryphal female figures (Thecla, Drusiane, Maximilla,
Aristobula, Iphidama, Mygdonia) to counterbalance the male predominance of the characters in these hymns, thus their appearance
attests much more to the rhetorical skills of their authors than to the popularity of these apocryphal scriptures among the Manichaeans.

Keywords

apocrypha, Acts of the Apostles, Manichaeism, Coptic Psalm-Book, Thecla

In the increasing secondary literature on Christian
apocrypha and Manichaeism, one can encounter statements
according to which Manichaeans of Late Antiquity
widely read and intensively used the so-called Christian
apocryphal works. In this respect, some scholars claim,
the works in question included some apocryphal gospels
(especially that of Thomas) and the five most important
apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Acts of Thomas, John,
Paul, Peter and Andrew).1
‘The Manichees made great use of a common
Christian literature of apocryphal gospels.’ (Brown
1969, 101–102)
‘From both works [under review, GK] it appears
again that the study of background and develop-
ment of the Apocryphal Acts is very complicated.
However, we may conclude that finally the five
oldest Acts were used among the Manichees.’ (Kli-
jn 1983, 194)
‘It is certain that the Gospel of Thomas was known
and used in Manicheism.’ (Blatz 1991, 112)
1
I would like to thank Professor Ulrich Luft for introducing me to the
beauty of the Coptic language and the subtleties of Gnostic thought.
As for this particular piece of writing, I am indebted to Monika Pesthy
for showing me the bewildering world of the Christian apocrypha and
inspiring me to write on its relation to Manichaeism. My thanks also go
to Jason BeDuhn, Andrea Hasznos, Péter Tóth and Imre Galambos who
helped me in various ways. Though only partially related to the main topic
of my research, the scholarship from the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation
for International Scholarly Exchange (PD003-U-09) has given me the
opportunity to find time for writing the present essay. For citing the
Coptic Manichaean sources, I use the following editions: Psalm-book:
Allberry 1938; Kephalaia: Böhlig and Polotsky 1940; Homilies: Polotsky
1934.
‘the ATh [Acts of Thomas, KG] were intensively
read by the Manichees, as is clear from the Mani-
chean Psalm-Book.’ (Drijvers 1992, 323)
‘The Manichaeans gathered these five [Apocryphal
Acts, GK] into a corpus which they substituted for
the canonical Acts.’ (Elliott 1993, 229)
‘Apocryphal Gospels and Acts of Apostles were
widely read in the Manichaean circles.’ (Schipper
and van Oort 2000, 97)
‘The five Acts were a corpus when the Manichae-
ans were reading and commenting upon them in
the fourth century, and perhaps already in the third’
(Thomas 2003, 11)
‘The Manichaeans are probably at the origin of this
collection of five Acts. They gathered or canonized
the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of John, the Acts of
Peter, the Acts of Paul, and the Acts of Thomas.’
(Bovon 2003, 167. n.8.)
‘As early as the late third century, these five Acts
were gathered as a corpus by the Manicheans in
place of the canonical (Lucan) Acts…’ (Rhee 2005,
29)
‘In particular, the Coptic, Manichaean Psalm-book
makes prominent use of material drawn from the
apocryphal acts of the apostles, such as the Acts
of Paul, the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Andrew, the
Acts of John, and the Acts of Thomas (Nagel 1973;
Kaestli 1977; Leloir 1991). It has even been shown
that Manichaeans made significant use of various
logia from the Gospel of Thomas (Coyle 2003*
[2007, GK]; Funk 2002; Mirecki 1991).’ (Pettip-
iece (n.d.); Pettipiece 2008, 419. n.1.)

107
From Illahun to Djeme. PaPers PresenteD In honour oF ulrIch luFt
‘C’est simplement parce que les écrits (apocryphes)
étaient trés lus par les Manichéens.’ (Alfaric 1919,
193)
‘Les AJ [Actes de Jean, KG], comme les autres
Actes apocryphes les plus anciens, ont été lus par
les Manichéens.’ (Junod and Kaestli 1982, 49)
‘Que Mani ait eu accès à ces écrits [the apocryphal
acts, GK] pendant sa période elkhasaïte, nous paraît
certain.’ (Junod and Kaestli 1982, 79)
‘L’intérêt des manichéens pour les Actes apocry-
phes est bien connu et doit remonter à Mani lui-
même.’ (Poupon 1998, 196)
K. Coyle (2009, 125–126) succinctly summarized what
various scholars considered as the main motivation for the
Manichaeans to use these acts: ‘In the case of the various
Acts, it has been suggested that Manichaeans treasured
them for the importance they ascribed to the apostle
figure [Junod and Kaestli 1982, 79–80; Kaestli 1977, 112;
Nagel 1973, 174, 178; Poupon 1998, 197], to the ideal
of asceticism (especially continence) [Kaestli 1977, 113;
Nagel 1973, 176–177; Poupon 1998, 197], to the fortitude
of the Acts’ protagonists in the face of suffering [Nagel
1973, 175–176; Poupon 1998, 197], to some liturgical
themes [Kaestli 1977, 114], or to the notes of partnership
with a heavenly companion [Nagel 1973, 179–180], and of
missionary endeavour [Nagel 1973, 180–181]’.
The statements above are ostensibly logical and convincing
since Manichaeans were living in the same religious milieu
as Christians, some of them had been Christians before
they converted to Manichaeism, therefore it would not
come as a surprise if they knew of the Christian apocrypha,
especially their most popular type, the apocryphal Acts of
the Apostles (hence abbreviated as AAA). The associations
listed by Coyle are indeed all topics important both in
the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles and Manichaeism.
However, it is worth examining if Manichaeans indeed
read (and appropriated) these works in an extensive and/or
intensive way as referred in the statements above (‘widely
read’, ‘prominent use’, ‘intensively read’, ‘trés lus’).
Since the assertions above are allegedly based on the
original Manichaean sources, and not only on the church
fathers’ polemical writings, it would seem logical to find
a plethora of conspicuous examples in the Manichaean
corpus. However, this is not the case.
I. Two protagonist-lists
While Manichaean scriptures are permeated with Biblical
allusions and citations (Pettipiece 2008), unambiguous
reference to the Acts of the Apostles are surprisingly
sparse. Here I will examine only the explicit references (i.e.
the protagonists of the AAA and their deeds), and will not
dwell on general features, such as encratism or docetism,
which are not restricted to the AAA, and thus, I think,
cannot be used as definitive evidence. I will also neglect
the possible influence of Manichaeism on the AAA, such
as the ‘five parts of the soul’ in the Acts of Thomas (27)
108
or the Light-cross in the Acts of John (97–100), because
I only examine the influence of AAA on Manichaeism.
Here, I will also ignore the Hymn of pearl (Acts of Thomas
108–113): firstly, because there is no scholarly agreement
on its Gnostic, Mandean or Manichaean affiliation,
and secondly, since its first appearance occurred in a
10th century manuscript, it is obviously an interpolation
(Drijvers 1992, 330; Poirier 1986, 236; Russell 2004), thus
it could have had an impact on Manichaeism only as an
independent work, and not as a part of the Acts of Thomas.
Therefore, as far as the protagonists of the AAA are
concerned, the Latin (Tebessa-codex) and Greek (Cologne
Mani Codex) scriptures do not contain any references
(BeDuhn and Harrison 1997; Clackson et al. 1998, 12–
27). As for the Coptic sources, the published part of the
Kephalaia and the Homilies contain no such references
(Gardner 1995, 304−306; Gardner 1996, 177; Polotsky
1934, Indices, 21−22). Among the Eastern sources, Middle
Persian (with one exception), Parthian and Chinese sources
again never mention any definite reference (Durkin-
Meisterernst 2004, 389–427; Mikkelsen 2006, 100–109).
Since presently no comprehensive dictionary exists on the
Uyghur and Sogdian Manichaean texts, no definitive claim
can be made, but among the published material (cf. Clark
1997; Morano 2007) I know of only one Uyghur fragment
that contains the name Thecla (Zieme 2002).
In sum, among these many thousands of shorter or longer
Manichaean texts, there are altogether three candidates:
1. The Middle Persian M788 mentions Thecla (R
5: tykl’y) in a list together with James, Cephas,
Mariam, Martha, Paul and Peter, who all became
the instrument of the Holy Ghost, thus Thecla is
referred to in an obviously Christian context (Hen-
ning 1944, 142. n.1).
2. Some Greek fragments similar to the Acts of John
were found at the Manichaean site (Area A) of
Kellis (Ismant el-Kharab, Dakhleh Oasis), which
‘draws upon a textual tradition also accessed (per-
haps at a different stage of development) by the
compiler of the known apocryphal work’ (Gardner
and Worp 1997, 140; cf. Jenkins 1995). Neverthe-
less, this text was most probably part of a codex
that also contained a Manichaean psalm in Greek,
but they did not constitute a single literary work
(Gardner and Worp 1997, 139–140). On the other
hand, it should be noted that besides this text and
some occurrences of Drusiane as personal name,
as far I know, nothing else points to the presence
of AAA among the Kellis remains. Among the
several letters, there is only one that mentions an
‘apocryphal’ writing (P.Kell. V Copt. 19). In this
letter a certain Makarios exhorts his son to study
the Psalms, the Apostolos, the Great Prayers, the
Sayings and the Prostrations, and also mentions the
great and the small (Book) of Epistles, all of which
seem to be Manichaean works. However, twice a
 Gábor Kósa: the ProtaGonIst-cataloGues oF the aPocryPhal acts oF aPostles In the coPtIc manIchaIca
certain Judgment of Peter is also named (Gard-
ner and Lieu 2004, 274), which is perhaps identi-
cal with the Iudicium Petri or Iudicium secundum
Petrum (Duae viae), incorporated into the Didache
(opening chapters), the Epistle of Barnabas (final
chapters) and the Doctrina apostolorum (Aldridge
1999), and with its teaching on the two ways (those
of light and darkness) could have been interpreted
as fitting the dualistic Manichaean system (cf. the
opinion of Dubois [2002, 150–151] that it refers to
the Apocalypse of Peter). Nevertheless, this is not
the Acts of Peter.
3. There is a late (9th century) Uyghur fragment (So
14000 = T II D 77), which contains some excerpts
from a version of the Acts of Paul, but in this case
the Manichaean affiliation is only hypothetical,
though probable (Zieme 2002, 62).
Even if in the future a handful of further AAA fragments
with Manichaean affiliation emerge, the statistical
proportion will still illustrate that among these sources
(which exclude the Coptic Psalm-book) 99,9% of
Manichaean scriptures never mention any of the characters
from the AAA (cf. Nagel’s opinion [1973, 174] on the
Coptic sources: ‘… muss der literarische Nachhall der
Pentade der Acta apostolorum in den manichäischen
Schriften als gering bezeichnet werden. Das Korpus der
fünf Acta hat auch, soweit wir sehen, nur einen schmalen
Ausschnitt des manichäischen Literatur erfasst’).
The only work in the entire Manichaean corpus that
demonstrably refers to AAA is the Coptic Psalm-
book. However, in the ca. 7000 lines (234 pages) of the
published Psalm-book, there are only ca. 60 lines (limited
to two hymn-cycles within the collection) that explicitly
mention AAA figures (0,9%). In this essay, I will primarily
concentrate on these most frequently cited examples,
which, coupled with the church fathers’ remarks, are
usually considered as irrevocable evidence for the wide
popularity of AAA among the Manichaeans: the two lists
of the Psalm-book, which contain enumerations of major
AAA protagonists and a further hymn which contains two
names.
I.1. The Psalmoi Sarakōtōn
The Psalmoi Sarakōtōn (2almoi sarakwtwn) is a cycle
of psalms within the Coptic Manichaean Psalm-book
(Allberry 1938, 133–186). First, I will quote one of the
hymns in its entirety, because I think that the analysis of
the context might contribute to a better understanding of
the relevant apostle-list. I also summarize the motifs from
the same cycle of hymns, which contains two names from
the AAA.
Psalm-book 141,1–143,32 (Allberry 1938, 141–143,
slightly altered by Iain Gardner in Gardner and Lieu 2004,
241–244)
109
‘[141] . . . . . . Spirit of Endurance come to us, /. . . spirit
of endurance come to us, / let endurance endure and let us
bear up that we may / . . . endurance. / . . . the First Man, he
was sent out to the fight, / 5 and endurance came to him. /
He left his land of light behind him, he went out to the land
of / darkness and endurance came to him. / He left also
his people behind him, he went out to the field . . . / and
endurance came to him. / 10 . . . of the gods, he came to
the border of the man-eaters. / Endurance / . . . in the midst
of the . . . , he came that he might raise it (?) / Endurance /
. . . the angels, he came to the rampart (?) of the robbers. /
15 Endurance / . . . , he gave them as food to the beasts. /
Endurance / . . . they going forth, knowing that they would
fall into trouble. / Endurance / 20 . . . not a need which
came upon them. / Endurance / . . . to trouble until they
saved the . . . / Endurance / . . . also are the enduring ones
at this time. / 25 Let ( . . . ) / (The five) weight-carriers that
support the weight of the enemy. / Endurance / They are
the five sons of the father, the Living Spirit. / Endurance
/ 30 . . . that bears up, that comes from the heights to the
depths. / Endurance / . . . overseers that . . . the prison. /
Endurance / [142] Yet they wearied not . . . / The Father
himself also who is silent . . . / The second man, Adam, fell
into . . . / Sethel also, his son: his endurance is great. / 5 . .
. seventy-three years . . . / Enosh also and Noah, Shem . .
. / The righteous who were burnt in the fire, they endured.
/ This multitude that were wiped out: four thousand . . .
/ Enoch also, the sage, the transgressors being . . . / 10
All the blessed that have been have endured these pains,
/ down to the glorious one, the beloved, Jesus, our lord: /
they put a crown of thorns on him, they . . . ; / they smote
him in his face, they spat upon him; / they hung him to
a cross, they nailed to him four . . . ; / 15 wine, vinegar,
and myrrh they gave him and he took them. / All these
things which he suffered he endured for our sake. / All the
apostles that endured their pains: / Peter the apostle, who
was crucified upside down: / how many tortures did he
suffer, . . . with this purity. / 20 Andrew the apostle, they
set fire to the house beneath him: / he and his disciples,
all hail to them, they were crucified. / The two sons of
Zebedee were made to drink the cup of the . . . : / John
the virgin, he also was made to drink the cup, / fourteen
days imprisoned that he might die of (hunger); / 25 And
James also, he was stoned and killed, / they all threw their
stone at him that he might die beneath the storm. / The
same things also did Thomas endure in his cross: / four
soldiers at once pierced him with the point of the lance,
/ they surrounded him on four sides and made his blood
flow . . . / 30 how many mysteries did he perform, many a
sign did he fulfil. / Paul the apostle, they went against him
that they might kill him: / how great then is their wrath, he
expired, he did not escape; / I therefore too have endured
the things which he suffered before today. / [143] he was
thrown into a basket and hung outside the wall; / all these
things he suffered, he did not weary, he did not flinch; / he
left the open court of the lord, knowing that . . . / Thecla,
the lover of God, who was made to go up on the fire: / 5
she received the sign of the cross, she walked into the fire
rejoicing; / yet was she not ashamed, naked in the midst of
From Illahun to Djeme. PaPers PresenteD In honour oF ulrIch luFt

the crowd; / she was thrown to the bears, the lions were let
loose to her; / she was bound to the bulls, the seals were
let loose to her; / all these things that she suffered, she
did not flinch, she did not . . them; / 10 a crown it is that
she desires, it is purity for which she fights. / The blessed
Drusiane also, she also suffered the same: / fourteen days
imprisoned like her master, her apostle. / Maximilla and
Aristobula, on them was great torture inflicted: / what need
for them to suffer these things, it is purity for which they
fight. / 15 All the godly that there have been, male, female,
all have suffered; / down to the glorious one, the apostle
Mani the living. / Our lord Manichaios himself also was
made to drink the cup: / he received the likeness of them
all, he fulfilled all their signs. / How many of his disciples
also received the likeness of their fathers? / 20 We also, my
brethren, have our part of suffering: / we shall join with
them in the suffering and rest in their rest; / the covenant
of our father, the profit and the loss are divided between
us; / we are true sons, the heirs of their fathers; / There is
nothing that is free from suffering that will rest in the end:
/ 25 the very seed also that is sown, unless it dies, finds
not the way to live, / but by its death it lives and gives
life also. / Let us make ourselves strong also, my brethren;
for lo, the rest has reached us, / that we may receive the
blessing of all whereof we have spoken, / and dwell with
one another in the glorious land of light, / 30 with no foe
and no enemy and no adversary from henceforth, / but it
is peace and joy and life eternal. Lo, this is the end of the
psalm of endurance.’
It is undeniable that the author of the present hymns
knew some major motifs from the AAA. In the second
instance no intimate knowledge is shown, but Thecla
(Paul’s companion in the Acts of Paul) and Drusiane
(wife of Andronicos in Acts of John) appear as symbols of
perfect virginity (and thus associated with the electae) and
continence (paralleled with auditors), respectively (Nagel
1973, 156; Junod and Kaestli 1982, 52. n.16, cf. Richter
1993, 218–219). As evidenced by their appearance in the
Psalm-book, celibacy (either in an unmarried or married
state) was a basic requirement for the female figures of
AAA to be mentioned there (Coyle 2009, 202). If we look
at the figures linked with virginity, they seem to follow
a mytho-chronological order, beginning with the Realm
of Light and the Father of Greatness, the creation of
nature and mankind, and ending with the last judgement
and its three possible final outcomes for the individual.
The Land of Light–Father–Sun thus might represent the
mythical past with the creation, Sethel the ‘Old Testament’
figure, from John to Thecla would be the ‘New Testament’
symbols, while (real) Virginity, the arrival of the Judge
and the consequences of the judgment belonging to the
Manichaean phase (we will see a similar structure in Ps.
141,1–143,32). In this respect, Thecla’s and Drusiane’s
role would be a kind of ending of the Christian period,
after which Virginity and Continence (the topic of the
entire hymn) might appear in Manichaean elects and
auditors. Unlike the psalm of Endurance, this list does not
aim at a systematic overview (for example, most of the
mythological figures, Jesus or Mānī are not mentioned),
thus any interpretation requires caution.
In the first psalm (Ps. 141,1–143,32), the knowledge of
the AAA is undeniable, though the descriptions are limited
to the circumstances of the sufferings and death of some
male and female apostolic figures. As for the context of

Psalm-book 179,13–181,12
VIRGIN CONTINENT ONE MARRIED ONE
[parcenos] [egkraths] [egkamos]
Land of Light [pkax Mpouaïne] New Aeon [paiwn NbRre] World [pkosmos]
Father [pïwt] Emanations [Nprobolaue] Archon [parywn]
sun [prh] moon [poox] stars [Nsiou]
Sethel [shchl] Adam [adam] Eve [euxa]
John [ïwxan] […] Judas [ïoudas]
eagle [paetos] dove [tqrampxet] dragon [pdrakwn]
[…] bread [païk] lesh [tsar3]
Spirit [pPNA] soul [t2uyh] body [pswma]
height [pj[i]se] air [pahr] abyss [pnoun]
Shepherd [pmenhu] sheep [pesau] wolf [pouwnÝ]
right [tounem] middle way [pmaït Ntmhte] left [tqbour]
fulness [pjwk] faith [pnaxte] lack [pqwjbe]
great breath [pnefo] north wind [ptoumxit] storm [pqasme]
treasure [pyrhma] watcher [prefraïs] robber [plhsths]
Physician [pseïne] healing [ptlqo] wound [p¥qa]
Thecla [cekla] Drusiane [drousianh] woman without honour [tat¥eu]
Virgin [[t]parcenia] Continence [tegkratia] deilement [psww[f]]
Judge [pkriths] justiication [ptmaïo] condemnation [tkrisis]
[…] […] […]
garland [pklam] prize [pbrabeion] defeat [pqwtP]

110
 Gábor Kósa: the ProtaGonIst-cataloGues oF the aPocryPhal acts oF aPostles In the coPtIc manIchaIca
this longer hymn, which is one of the two regularly cited
pieces of evidence for the pervasive presence of AAA in
the Manichaean community, it presents a comprehensive
vision to demonstrate that xupomonh (ὑπομονή), i.e.
endurance in times of affliction, had always been the
inherent feature of the envoys from the Realm of Light.
The catalogue comprises the following figures: the First
Man, [the five sons of the First Man], [the Living Spirit],
the five sons of the Living Spirit, Adam, Sethel, Enosh,
Noah, Shem, (the Righteous), Enoch, Jesus, Peter, Andrew,
John, James, Thomas, Paul, Thecla, Drusiane, Maximilla,
Aristobula, Mānī, and the contemporary believers whom a
similar fate might await.
The figures of AAA are thus inserted in a longer catalogue
that presents four easily distinguishable groups in a strict
mytho-chronological order: 1. The primeval mythological
past (141,4–142,2); 2. ‘Old Testament’ figures (partly
apocryphal) from Adam to Enoch (142,3–142,10); 3.
‘New Testament’ figures (partly apocryphal) from Jesus to
Aristobula (142,11–143,15); 4. Manichaean figures from
Mānī to the contemporary believers (Ps. 143,16–143,31;
Nagel 1967, 128–129, cf. Junod and Kaestli 1982, 50–51).
All these envoys from the Realm of Light are mentioned
only to support the author’s argument and encouragement
that contemporary believers, similarly to their mytho-
historical forerunners, must endure all afflictions and
sufferings (Ps. 143,20–23).
The first reason for the inclusion of AAA protagonists
is rather straightforward. Since the enumeration of the
sufferers follows a chronological order outlined above,
the third category (‘Christians’) naturally incorporates
‘Christian’ heroes. The question is not why these
apocryphal Christian figures were included in the list (and
finding the reason in the great popularity of AAA among
Manichaeans), but whom else could have been included
in the Christian list if not the most popular and iconic
Christian figures of the author’s time. More specifically,
as for the significant presence of female apocryphal
‘martyrs’, it is revealing to compare the evidently parallel
ending of two larger units:
1. The first is a summary of mythological and ‘Old
Testament’ sufferers which starts the description
of Jesus’ (and other ‘New Testament’ figures’) tor-
ments: ‘All the blessed [Mmakarios throu] that
have been have endured these pains, / down to the
glorious one [¥axoun appapeau], the beloved,
Jesus, our Lord (Ps. 142,10–11)’.
2. The second is the summary of ‘New Testament’
sufferers, which in turn inaugurates the account of
Mānī’s sufferings ending up in encouraging con-
temporary believers to act similarly: ‘All the godly
that there have been, male, female [rMNnoute nim
af¥wpe xaut sxime], all have suffered; / down to
the glorious one [¥axoun appapeau], the apostle
Mani the living’ (Ps. 143,15–16).
111
It is evident that the two most important figures, Jesus
and Mānī, are highlighted by these summaries with a
conspicuous parallel in the wording. It is also evident
that the emphasis on the male and female character of the
sufferers can be referred to only in the second summary,
because in the mythological and the Old Testament parts
there are no female figures, therefore only the genderless
‘the blessed’ (Mmakarios) are mentioned.
Female auditors and elects were demonstrably present in
the Manichaean church (see e.g. Coyle 2009; Scopello
2005a; Scopello 2005b, 308–310), electae were relatively
often depicted (MIK III 4815 a–d, 6286, 141 a, 6388,
6251, 6918; Gulácsi 2001, 179, 183, 187, 189, 195, 201).
Moreover, most of the psalms of the Psalm-book end
with a doxology including several Manichaean women
(their being martyrs is a controversial issue), here I cite
the number of references to them (by far more than any
AAA figure) in the Psalm-Book (Clackson et al. 1998,
182–185): Maria (maria): ca. 109; Theona (ceona): 39;
Pshai (p¥aï, p¥ai): 16; Jmnoute (jMnoute, jmnoute):
15; Plousiane (plousiane): 10; Panai (panai, panaï): 8;
Cleopatra (kleopatra): 1.
Therefore, if the author of the hymn desired to encourage
contemporary female believers as well, he/she had to
address them by citing female forerunners. Though
the Manichaean cosmogonic myth did not lack female
characters (Mother of Life, Maiden of Light, see Tongerloo
1997), they were not typically subjected to afflictions
thus they could not be cited as eminent representatives
of the virtue of endurance. Similarly, the traditional list
of visionaries from Jewish apocrypha, also featuring
for example in the Greek Cologne Mānī-codex (where
apocalypses of Sethel, Enosh, Shem, Enoch are quoted,
CMC 50,8–60,12, see Frankfurter 1997) and in the Coptic
Kephalaia (12,10–12: shchl, enwy, shm, enw¥) and
Homilies (68,17: [e]no¥, shm, ¥hm, enwy), included
only male figures. Next, the ‘Christian’ list, if based only
on Luke’s Acts, could not have served the overall goal of
the hymn: to address all contemporary believers, male
and female alike. I think that this rhetorical (especially
paraenetic) aim, and not the immense popularity of the
apocryphal Acts among the Manichaeans, was the second
reason for selecting apocryphal heroines.
In sum, in this hymn, the catalogus martyrorum does not
provide a persuasive evidence of the popularity of AAA
among the Manichaeans, but fundamentally serves two,
very specific rhetorical aims: 1. To collect past examples
of endurance from the first sacrifice of the First Man up to
the present of the hymns in a mytho-chronological order,
naturally including the ‘pre-Manichaean’, ‘Christian’
phase of the Manichaean church, thus offering consolation
for the contemporary believers in times of persecution; 2.
The significant presence of women among the ‘martyrs’
can be explained by the same effort to provide a list of
exempla that can be believably encouraging for both the
male and the female members of the church.
From Illahun to Djeme. PaPers PresenteD In honour oF ulrIch luFt
I.2. The Psalms of Heracleides
The other hymn so often cited to prove the widespread
popularity of AAA among the Manichaeans appears in
another cycle of hymns, the Psalms of the Lord Heracleides
(2almoi KU hrakleidou, Allberry 1938, 187–202). In this
hymn (Ps. 191,18–193,12) the parable of the Ten virgins
(Matthew 25: 1–13) introduces a list of male apostles,
followed by women from AAA (for a similar list of the
apostles without AAA protagonists, see Ps. 194,7–22).
Ps. 192,5–193,3.
‘An unshakeable foundation is Peter the Apostle. /
A mind strong (?) in how much is Andrew the twin
(?). / A ship . . . . is John the Virgin. / A brother . .
. . in (?) how much is James, his brother also / and
he died beneath the strom of stone. / An enduring one
is Philip, he being in the land of the / Anthropophagi.
There were. / The sign of freedom from care is the old
Bartholomew, / for he does not take the bread of the
day with him. / A sheep . . .-ing up to this day is Simon
the Cananite. / A merchant that finds gain is Thomas in
the land of / India. There were. / An obedient disciple
is Alphaeus, the gentle. / An accuser of God is Judas,
the lover of money. / But a good end is Matthew the
tax-gatherer. / The axe of the Law is Paul the Apostle.
A net-caster is Mariam, hunting for the eleven others /
that were wandering. There were. / A joyous servant is
Martha her sister also. / Obedient sheep are Salome and
Arsenoe. / A despiser of the body is Thecla, the lover of
God. / A shamer of the serpent is Maximilla the faithful.
/ A receiver of food news is Iphidama her sister also,
imprisoned (?) in the prisons. / A champion in the fight
is Aristobula the enduring one. / A giver of Light to
others (?) us Eubula the noble woman, / drawing the
heart of the prefect. / A . . . that loves [her] master is
Drusiane, the lover of God, shut / up for fourteen days,
questioning [searching for, GK] her Apostle. . . . . . . .
. . who was found is Mygdonia in the land of India.’
The present list resembles the former one in many respects:
1. It also enumerates apostles between Jesus and Mānī, that
is here again only ‘pre-Manichaean’, ‘Christian’ figures
can be duly expected, their presence is determined by the
context; 2. It also aims at delivering a specific message:
here vigilance and doing the good works (not endurance)
is the main point; 3. This message is also directed to the
contemporary community of believers, historical exempla
are cited in order to support the central teaching. 4.
The last section also explicitly mentions that the entire
Manichaean community should follow the examples of
the past: ‘we go within the bride-chamber and reign with
him, all of us together (thrN xiousap)…’. This phrase
evidently includes the contemporary female believers
for whom female forerunners (Mariam, Martha, Salome,
Arsenoe, Thecla, Maximilla, Iphidama, Aristobula,
Eubula, Drusiana, Mygdonia) are cited. This list again
counterbalances the otherwise male dominance of the
preceding, traditional apostle-list.
112
Compared to the previous hymn, the novelty lies in the
fact that the refrain of this hymn is taken from the parable
of the Ten virgins (‘There were ten virgins, wathching
for the Bridegroom, neouN mhte Mparcenos euraïs
appajeleet), thus it is not surprising to see examples of
outstanding women in the second part of the list. Though
the author of the hymn apparently did not make an attempt
to reconcile the number of the wise virgins (five) and
the number of the male and female apostles (twelve and
eleven, respectively), nevertheless the hymn successfully
conveys the message that similarly to the apostles during
the previous centuries, contemporary believers should also
be vigilant and should not only receive the name of the
Lord but also do his works.
This said, it should be also emphasized that there is at
least one piece of evidence to suggest that the list of the
male apostles was included only later. Since all members
of the female list represent positive examples, one might
expect the same in the male list as well. Surprisingly, this
list exceptionally includes ‘an accuser of God is Judas, the
lover of money’, which seems to be the result of inserting
the already existing, usual apostle-list without adapting
it to the context. I think that this hymn, once again,
provides no evidence for a general popularity of the AAA
among the Manichaeans but attests to a specific rhetorical
(paraenetic) usage of these figures.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to examine the accuracy
of the information in these two longer psalms. The
information in the Acts of Thomas (Ps. 193,2–3), both the
figure of Mygdonia and the circumstances of Thomas’
death are precise, as well as the description of Thecla’s
sufferings (Ps. 143,4−10), if compared with the Acts of
Paul. In the 16th part of the Acts of Andrew, Maximilla is
praying to conquer her husband, the arrogant and harmful
serpent (cf. Ps. 192,26: ouref+¥ipe Nvaf), and in
the 15th part of the Acts she is called a strong believer
(πιστοτάτη, cf. Ps. 192,26: +pistos), which are both
nearly verbatim quotations (Richter 1993, 216). On the
other hand, the present version of the same acts does not
record the burning house of Andrew or the imprisonment
of Iphidama (Lanzillotta 2004, 8; Nagel 1973, 163; Richter
1993, 216). Coupled with other minor inaccuracies, these
slips, according Lanzillotta (2004, 122), suggest that the
Manichaeans did not have a first-hand knowledge of the
Acts of Andrew. However, in his Liber de miraculis Beati
Andreae Apostoli, Gregory of Tours does record a burning
house in connection with Andrew (Nagel 1973, 160;
Prieure 1992, 102), and Iphidama does enter the prison to
visit Andrew, though to see this as an imprisonment would
be an exaggeration.
In contrast with the Manichaean description above, the
Acts of John (111–115) records John’s death as nearly
voluntary, ordering his disciples to dig out a grave in which
he, after a long speech, enters; there is no mention of prison
or hunger (cf. Nagel 1973, 166). Aristobula does appear in
the 59th part of the Acts of John, but in contrast with the
Manichaean description (Ps. 143,13), there is no mention
 Gábor Kósa: the ProtaGonIst-cataloGues oF the aPocryPhal acts oF aPostles In the coPtIc manIchaIca
of her suffering (cf. Nagel 1973, 168; Richter 1993, 217).
Drusiane’s imprisonment for 14 days is also absent in the
present version of the acts (Ps. 143,11−12, 192,32−193,1;
Bremmer 1995, 42; Junod and Kaestli 1982, 549).
The Psalm-book mentions Peter’s death only once (Ps.
142,18: petros papostolos petauRstaure Mmaf
sajwf), which motif is indeed recorded in the Acts of
Peter (37–38), but it was most probably a well-known
information (Schneemelcher and Wilson 1992, 273). It
is also worth noting that the Manichaean source lays the
emphasis on Peter’s sufferings (Ps. 142,19: ouhr Na¥el
af¥apou efasie abal mNpitoubo), while the Acts of
Peter present his death as a voluntary, active, self-chosen
gesture and an exultant victory (Pesthy 1998).
The explanation of these inconsistencies would require
a separate study, but they evidently suggest that in some
cases the source (direct or indirect) was different from the
presently available AAA. The inaccuracy in the description
of John’s death, for example, might suggest that the author
of the psalm, and probably the community around him,
possessed a separate redaction of the Acts, in which some
scenes were different from the presently available one (cf.
the Acts of John from Kellis). Alternatively, the author
of the present psalm himself altered the contemporary
version of John’s death to make it analogous to the other
martyrdoms described in the psalm. In the latter case,
however, we must suppose that the Manichaean audience
was not familiar with the usual version.
Naturally, including apocryphal examples presupposes
a certain knowledge of these figures, though one should
not forget that there are altogether two hymns of this
kind in the vast ocean of Manichaean hymnody, and that
this knowledge was probably limited and in some cases
perhaps indirect, even in the case of the authors. But
knowing about them and intensively reading the scriptures
in which they feature (AAA) are definitely two different
matters: Manichaeans knew about Shem and Enoch as
well, but it does not mean that a significant percentage of
Manichaeans read Jewish apocrypha.
Furthermore, there is one important aspect that might
furnish an explanation why these specific hymns contain
these references. All three hymns analyzed above (the two
from the Psalmoi Sarakōtōn and the one from the Psalms
of Heracleides) are antiphonal, that is they were sung at
liturgical events where most probably auditors were also
present. S. N. C. Lieu’s description aptly summarizes
the everyday practice of the auditor’s religious life: ‘…
the liturgical life of the Manichaean Hearer was devoted
mainly to prayer, confession and the singing of hymns,
which were sometimes responsorial or antiphonal as
well as listening to the accounts and achievements and
martyrdoms of the sect’s earlier heroes… (Lieu 1992,
169–170)’. The resposorial feature of these hymns is not
a general characteristics of the Psalm-book: it does not
appear in the Psalms of the Bēma (Ps. 1–47), the Psalms to
Jesus (Ps. 48–97) or the Psalms of Thomas (Ps. 203–227),
113
but they do appear in the Psalmoi Sarakōtōnban (Ps. 133–
186), the Psalms of Heracleides (Ps. 187–202) and some
other psalms (e.g. Ps. 116–132).
If these antiphonal psalms were indeed in vogue with the
auditors, it seems reasonable to suppose that the elects
might have consciously inserted these examples into the
hymns in order to capture the imagination of the auditors,
many of whom evidently came from a ‘pure’ Christian
background, where such narratives were immensely
popular. This would also explain why the psalms cited
above devote relatively more attention to figures like
Thecla (Ps. 143,4–10; 180,29; 192,25, cf. Davis 2001,
101) or (slightly less) Drusiane (Ps. 143, 11–12; 180,30;
192,32–193,1) who were demonstrably extremely popular
among Christians as well.
It is also interesting to note that while Manichaean concepts,
including Jesus, appear in a well-proportioned way in
the entire Psalm-book (Allberry 1938, 45*–47*), ‘New
Testament’ figures (Alpheus, Andrew, Aristobula, Arsenoe,
Bartholomew, Drusiane, Eubula, Iphidama, James, John,
Judas, Levi, Mariam, Martha, Matthew, Maximilla,
Mygdonia, Paul, Peter, Paul, Peter, Philip, Simon the
Canaanite, Thecla, Thomas, Zebedee) appear practically
always (with one minor, but negligible exception in Ps.
7,22) in the dominantly antiphonal Psalmoi Sarakōtōn and
Psalms of Heracleides (Allberry 1938, 44*–45*). Even a
place name such as the Mount of Olives (tau NNjaït),
with its three occurrences in the entire Coptic Manichaica,
appears twice in the Psalms of Heracleides (Ps. 187,27–
28; 190,31) and once more in another, antiphonal hymn
(123,37). What is more, apart from two references to Judas
(K.12,31, 19,4) and two to Paul in the Kephalaia (K. 13,26,
19,7), none of these 26 ‘New Testament’ figures appear in
the Kephalaia (Clackson et al. 1998, 182–185), which was
more pronouncedly targeted at the elects (Gardner 1995,
xxiii: ‘it [the Kephalaia, GK] belongs to the inner circle
of the elect’). Thus it seems that while Manichaean elects
were using ‘pure Manichaean’ material among themselves,
auditors were offered some mixture, a sort of consciously
constructed syncretism. Thus there is a certain degree of
probability that the AAA figures were consciously inserted
into these hymns in order to make certain concepts,
which were important for the Manichaean community
(endurance, vigilance, virginity), more attractive for the
auditors who might have had a (not necessarily distant)
Christian past.
As a summary, in this part I arrived at the following
conclusions:
1. The entire written Manichaean corpus (including
Western and Eastern texts) has practically only one
Manichaean work where the protagonists of the
AAA are referred to explicitly, namely, the Coptic
Psalm-book. From the ca. 7000 lines of the Psalm-
book, ca. 60 lines (0,9%) contain explicit referenc-
es to AAA figures.
From Illahun to Djeme. PaPers PresenteD In honour oF ulrIch luFt
2. These references appear in three hymns: 1. The-
cla and Drusiane are mentioned in an antiphonal
psalm as representing virginity and continence,
respectively, in a hymn, which seems to contain
free associations about virginity, continence and
marriage. 2. Various male and female apostles with
their respective ways of suffering and death are
listed in a basically antiphonal hymn in praise of
the virtue of endurance. Encouraging contemporary
Manichaean believers to model their life on their
mytho-historical forerunners, this hymn includes a
long section on the ideals from the ‘pre-Manichae-
an, Christian’ phase; 3. A list of AAA heroes and
heroines is included in an antiphonal hymn that en-
courages contemporary Manichaean believers to be
vigilant and do good works like their forerunners
from the ‘pre-Manichaean’ period did. If analyzed
in their own context, it becomes evident that the
inclusion of these AAA figures can be explained
by the specific rhetorical aim of the psalm, and not
the hitherto supposed popularity of AAA among the
Manichaeans in general.
3. We cannot exclude the possibility that these exam-
ples appear in antiphonal hymns precisely because
they might have had a familiar ring, and were at-
tractive for auditors (or even elects) with a Chris-
tian past.
4. None of the arguments above supports the gener-
ally accepted thesis that the apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles, especially their protagonists, enjoyed a
wide popularity among Manichaean believers. On
the contrary, their minimal presence in the Man-
ichaean scriptures, as well as the concrete rhetori-
cal aim of these very few passages, all suggest that
the Manichaean church in the West, and especially
in Egypt, was surprisingly uninterested in the pro-
tagonists of these writings.
5. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that Man-
ichaeans were ‘omnivorous’ in popular religious or
literary texts, they also used for example Aesop’s
tales in their own interest (Zieme n.d.), thus gen-
erally widespread motifs from AAA could have
influenced the imagery of the Coptic Manichaean
scriptures (see e.g. the imagery which, among oth-
ers, occurs in the Acts of John, might be reflected
in the Ps. 189,30–191,17, cf. Nagel 1973, 168–171;
Gardner and Worp 1997, 141. n.7), as well as Man-
ichaeans as individuals or families might have had
affinity to the colourful stories of AAA, as can be
seen from the already mentioned Kellis version of
the Acts of John. My basic claim in this paper is
that the protagonist-lists of the Psalm-book do not
provide an irrefutable evidence for the general and
massive popularity of these scriptures among the
Manichaeans.
114
II. The church fathers on the Manichaean usage of the
apocryphal acts
Despite the fact that we can hardly find any direct evidence
of the Manichaean usage of the Acts of the Apostles,
various apologetic writings categorically claim that there
is an intimate relationship between Manichaeans and the
AAA. The claim that the Manichaeans used a canon of
five acts compiled by a certain Leucius has already been
convincingly refuted (Kaestli 1977, 107–116), therefore
I will not discuss this problem here. It should also be
emphasized that apologetic literature often refers to the use
of AAA by various non-Manichaean heretical sects as well:
1. Heretics (in general or in groups) use the apocryphal
acts (e.g. Philastrius episcopus: liber de haeresibus 88. (PL
12:1199−1200): Gnostici, Nicolaïtae, Valentiniani) or e.g.
the Acts of Thomas (Augustinus: de sermone Domini in
monte 20,65); 2. The Encratites used the Acts of Andrew,
John or Thomas (Panarion 47,1,5; Williams 1994, 3); 3.
The Apostolici relied on the Acts of Andrew and Thomas
(Panarion 61,1,3; Williams 1994, 115); 4. The Origenists
used the Acts of Andrew (Panarion 63,2,1; Williams 1994,
129); 5. Turribius, bishop of Barcelona (5th c.) claims
that Priscillianists used the acts of Leucius (epistula ad
Idacium et Ceponium episc. 5 (PL 54:694C); Wace 1911,
1184). It is clear from the sources that according to the
church fathers the usage of the AAA was not restricted to
the Manichaeans. It should be also stressed that in the 4th
century Epiphanius attributes the usage of apocryphal acts
to various sects (Encratites, Apostolici, Origenists), but
not to the Manichaeans, who are otherwise discussed in a
lengthy chapter of his Panarion.
Other church fathers, however, did relate Manichaeans
with the AAA; here I will quote some important witnesses.
‘In the Acts written by Leucius, which they [the
Manichaeans, GK] accept [quos ipsi accipiunt], it is
written …’ (Evodius: De Fide contra Manichaeos
5.)
‘They [the Manichaeans, GK], however, read [le-
gunt] the apocryphal scriptures, which they call the
most uncorrputed…’ (Contra Adimantum XVII,2)
‘Especially those acts which are called those of
Saint Andrew, or those by the name of Saint John
(…) from which the Manichaeans, the Priscillian-
ists, and the similar sects, attempt to confirm their
entire heresy [omnem haeresim suam confirmare
nituntur].’ (Turribius: Epistula ad Idacium et Ce-
ponium episc. 5 (PL 54:694C)
‘…the Acts in the name of the apostle Andrew
– apocryphal, the Acts in the name of the apostle
Thomas – apocryphal, the Acts in the name of the
apostle Peter – apocryphal, the Acts in the name of
the apostle Philip – apocryphal, (…) the Gospel in
the name of Thomas which the Manichaeans use
[quibus Manichei utuntur] – apocryphum.’ (Decre-
tum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non reci-
piendis V,2–3; Dobschütz 1912, 49−51, ‘quibus’
 Gábor Kósa: the ProtaGonIst-cataloGues oF the aPocryPhal acts oF aPostles In the coPtIc manIchaIca
refers to all the preceding apocryphal works, cf.
Dobschütz 1912, 295)
After the examination of these witnesses, one can notice
that Manichaeans are attributed various kinds of activities
in relation to AAA: they accept (Evodius: De Fide contra
Manichaeo 5: ‘accipiunt’), they read (Contra Faustum
XXII,79; Contra Adimantum XVII,2: ‘legunt’), they use
(Decretum Gelasianum V,3: ‘utuntur’), they try to confirm
their entire heresy (‘confirmare nituntur’). These activities
are attributed to the Manichaeans (and in one case to other
heretics) in general.
In the first part of the present essay, I made an attempt to
show that the two, oft-quoted Coptic psalms do not attest
to the wide popularity of AAA among the Manichaeans. In
this second part, I try to qualify the church fathers’ opinion
to answer the question: what kind of Manichaeans were
they talking about? The entire church, the electi only or
simply the auditors? The authors of the Heracleides- and
Sarakōtōn-psalms or some auditors in Kellis? K. Coyle
(2007, 125) made a similar remark: ‘What is attributed
to some Manichaeans, however accurately, need not have
applied to all’. It is evident that the church fathers obtained
their information somewhere: it might have been a first-
hand experience (Augustine is the most probable candidate
for this type), they might have also inherited an older
stereotype or cliché, or simply heard some rumours. In the
following passages, I will present a hypothesis that would
provide some contextual background for these opinions.
It is difficult to estimate how much a polemicist knew
about the actual reading list and special teachings of the
Manichaean elects. Some scholars (Coyle 2001, 50, 56;
Bennett 2001, 73), pre-eminently based on Augustine’s
example, assume that there were scriptures read and used
by the elects that were usually not directly accessible
to the Manichaean auditors. Other scholars (BeDuhn
2010, 71, 104; Oort 1997, 242) claim that Augustine
was relatively well informed (this contrast between the
two groups of scholars comes from Bennett 2010, 3).
Presently, I am more inclined to endorse K. Coyle’s (2001,
55–56) distinction between Augustine, the auditor and
Augustine, the presbyter and bishop, implying that as an
auditor, Augustine did not have much access to the elects’
scriptures themselves.
Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that
auditors were perhaps not aware of the rituals performed
among the elects either: a famous example is Augustine’s
saying in which he confesses his ignorance in this respect
(Contra Fortunatum I,3: ‘Quid autem inter vos agatis, qui
Electi estis, ego scire non possum’). It is again Augustine
who mentions that Manichaean scriptures were read aloud
by elects: ‘For in that unhappy time when [that Mānī’s
letter, GK] was read [quando lecta est] to us we were, in
your opinion, enlightened [illuminati dicebamur a vobis]’
(Contra Epistulam Fundamenti 5,6). In another work,
he confesses that he did not hear about certain doctrines
(‘they maintain that the one [one of the souls, GK] is the
115
perfection of good, but the other the perfection of evil,
and that these two classes were at one time distinct but
are now commingled. The character and the cause of this
commingling I had not yet heard [nondum audieram]’ (De
duabus animabus XII,16).
It cannot be excluded that the name of the auditors in
some languages (Latin auditor(es) [audio = hear], Greek:
ἀκροατῆς [ἀκροάομαι = listen to], Syriac šāmūcē [šmā‘
= to hear], Middle Persian nywš’g’n [nywš = listen to],
’šnw’g’n [’šnw = to hear]; Parthian ngwš’g’n [Parthian
ngwš = to hear]; Sogdian nγ’wš’kt [nγwš- = to listen];
Uyghur äšidtäči [äšid = to hear], Chinese tīngrén 聽人,
tīngzhĕ 聽者, tīngshì 聽士 [Chinese tīng 聽 = to listen], cf.
Tongerloo 1982, 265–270) reflects precisely this aspect,
that is the auditors could only listen to the teachings and
were usually not allowed to have access to the scriptures
themselves.
The dominantly oral instruction also implied that there
were teachings that were not necessarily intended for
the average auditor: an illustration comes again from
Augustine, who claims that the elects had a teaching about
the division of space into three directions of light and one
of darkness ‘which they disclose as secrets to the very
eager and diligent inquirers’ [Sed haec nimis attentis et
studiose inquirentibus quasi secreta demonstrant] (Contra
Epistulam Fundamenti 21,23; cf. Bennett 2001, 73).
It is only in AD 393, many years after his conversion to
Christianity, that Augustine first quotes directly from a
Manichaean scripture (Coyle 2001, 49). Paradoxically, it
seems, that ‘Augustine as a Catholic presbyter and bishop
came to learn aspects of Manichaeism that had been
beyond the reach of Augustine the Manichaean Hearer
(Coyle 2001, 55–56).’ This raises the question that if even
the Manichaean Augustine as an auditor was sometimes
ignorant on certain topics, how could a non-Manichaean
outsider know what the elects do. ‘Manichaeism was a
secretive religion (…) Nor would we expect portions
of Manichaean scriptures or isolated aspects of Mani’s
teaching to be circulated like relics (Lieu 1992, 120)’. If
this was indeed so, it seems unlikely that church fathers
had first-hand information on the reading habits of the
Manichaean electi in general. Still, I will argue, Augustine
and other church fathers could obtain direct information
about the Manichaeans’ affinity towards apocrypha, but in
another context: in the various kinds of debates.
Writing on Manichaean missionary discourses, Richard
Lim (1995, 70−71) stresses that both public and private
types occurred. In the former case, usually Manichaeans
missionaries were challenged and called to debate, while
in the latter one, Manicheans initiated a kind of more
personal, missionary conversation. In both cases, it seems,
Manichaean missionaries preferred to use the textual
references that were more or less accepted by the other
side. In the private conversations, they evidently referred
to works that were popular with the would-be convert,
which in the case of a Christian believer was evidently
From Illahun to Djeme. PaPers PresenteD In honour oF ulrIch luFt
some Biblical material and certain ‘apocrypha’ (like the
AAA). In the case of the public debates, where Manichaean
debaters were usually forced to defend their own views,
they predominantly used Biblical citations and other
works that were still accepted by the Christian opponent.
A rather telling example is again from Augustine’s debate
at a time when the Acts of Paul was more or less accepted
by the Christian church (or at least the Manichaean
Faustus thought so), while the other acts had been already
rejected. In the debate on the preference of the complete
abandonment of marriage, the Manichaean Faustus gives
a detailed reasoning why he does not refer to the Acts of
Peter, Andrew, Thomas and John, but can still refer to the
Acts of Paul in the public debate.
‘I do not mention the other apostles of our Lord,
Peter, Andrew, Thomas, and the example of celibacy,
the blessed John, who in various ways commended
to young men and maidens the excellence of this
profession, leaving to us, and to you too, the form for
making virgins. I do not mention them, because you
do not admit them into the canon, and so you will not
scruple impiously to impute to them doctrines of devils.
But will you say the same of Christ, or of the Apostle
Paul, who, we know, everywhere expressed the same
preference for unmarried women to the married, and
gave an example of it in the case of the saintly Thecla
[sanctissimam Theclam]? But if the doctrine preached
by Paul to Thecla, and which the other apostles also
preached, was not the doctrine of devils, how can we
believe that Paul left on record his opinion, that the
very exhortation to sanctity is the injunction and the
doctrine of devils?’ (Contra Faustum XXX,4.)
Similarly to the Christian Justin Martyr (AD 103–165),
who tried to convert the Jewish Trypho by using solely
Old Testament citations, Manichaeans were abundantly
using Biblical references to support their theses. A
famous example is the Latin Codex of Tebessa, which
supports the division of elects and auditors, a typically
Manichaean feature, by using the example of Martha and
Mary (BeDuhn and Harrison 1997, 42−44). Though in the
example above (c. Faustum) Faustus could have supported
his argument for complete celibacy with all the five Acts
of the Apostles, but since four of them had become rejected
by the church by that time, he did not use them. However,
Thecla was a generally accepted symbol of virginity, the
Codex Claromontanus (5th−6th centuries) for example still
incorporated the Acts of Paul (Elliott 1993, 350). Several
church fathers were praising Thecla for her virginity and
her readiness to become a martyr (e.g. Ambrosius: De
virginibus, Methodius: Symposium, Severus of Antioch:
97th homily, the biography of Gregory of Nyssa, pseudo-
Chrysostom John), which did not mean that others did
not reject her, such as Tertullian, Cyprian or Jerome (for
the details, see Hayne 1994; Johnson 2006, 231–238;
Pesthy 1996). Thecla was also part of the Christian artistic
tradition (Pesthy 1996, 172. n.17). She was especially
popular in Asia Minor (Iconium, Nicomedia, Seleukeia)
and Egypt (Burris and van Rompay 2002; Davis 2001,
116
36–194; Johnson 2006, 21–66). Some scholars claim that
it was precisely the Manichaean appropriation of the Acts
of Paul, as seen in contra Faustum, which made this work
suspicious: ‘After it was known that the Manichaeans had
made use of the Acts of Paul subsequent church opinion
branded the work as apocryphal’ (Elliott 1993, 350; cf.
Bienert 1992, 25).
Similarly to this example, Manichaean missionaries
evidently used Christian writings in public or private
discourses. I suppose that besides transferring the use of
apocrypha from earlier heretic groups to Manichaeism,
the Manichaean missionaries’ technique to rely on the
Manichaean interpretation of Christian (Biblical and
apocryphal) writings in order to support their own theses (cf.
Pettipiece 2008) might be at the core of the church fathers’
recurrent association of the AAA with Manichaeans. In
my interpretation, expressions like Manichaeans ‘use
them’ (‘utuntur’), which evidently presupposes ‘reading’
(‘legunt’), or ‘trying to base’ (‘confirmare nituntur’) their
teachings on the apocrypha, pre-eminently all refer to the
Manichaean missionaries’ practice, which menaced the
Christian community by proselytization.
This also implies that the church fathers’ seemingly general
assertions in fact refer not to the Manichaean community
as a whole, not even to the elects or auditors in general, but
to a very small group of the elects who were responsible
for the Manichaean missions. This interpretation would
also offer an explanation why there are so few references
to the AAA in the Manichaean scriptures themselves. It
would also account for the apparent contradiction how the
non-Manichaean church fathers obtained their information
about the reading habits of the otherwise secretive
Manichaeans.
Conclusion
I think that statements like ‘the Manichaeans intensively
read the apocryphal writings’ (emphasis on ‘intensively’)
are not accurate, because they cannot be supported by the
extant Manichaean evidence. In this essay, I challenged
one of the pillars of this unanimously acknowledged
judgment and claim that the closer analysis of the data
retrieved from the Coptic Psalm-book makes a contrary
conclusion more likely.
I think that there is not simply no proof for the intensive
usage of Christian apocrypha in the Manichaean church
but all extant evidence much more suggests the contrary:
except for the author of the Psalms of Heracleides and
the Psalmoi Sarakōtōn, and some missionaries described
in anti-Manichaean polemics, no written Manichaean
source implies that the majority of the Manichaean
church was really absorbed in the colourful world of
the Acts of the Apostles. I naturally do not claim that
individual Manichaeans did not know, read and enjoyed
these narratives about the apostles (see the Acts of John
from Kellis); what I claim is that these two hymn-cycles,
which present the protagonists of the AAA in an explicit
 Gábor Kósa: the ProtaGonIst-cataloGues oF the aPocryPhal acts oF aPostles In the coPtIc manIchaIca
manner and in a clearly Manichaean context, and which
are therefore often quoted as the most obvious evidence
of the popularity of AAA among Manichaeans, in fact use
a very specific ‘rhetorical’ (especially paraenetic) speech,
and this, and not their supposed popularity, is the reason
why they feature the protagonists of the AAA.
The rhetorical use attested in two psalms of the Coptic
Psalm-book was naturally embedded in the Manichaean
‘mythological theology’. In order to encourage both
male and female believers, a goal unambiguously stated
in the texts, the essentially male predominance of the
mythological figures had to be counterbalanced by citations
from works featuring a great amount of exceptional female
characters. Another reason for the use of AAA was that, as
the Ps. 141,1–143,32 attests, endurance (xupomonh) was
not simply regarded as survival among the difficulties of
persecutions, but was seen in a cosmogonic (and therefore
also eschatological) perspective. In order to finally return
to the Realm of Light, the Manichaean believers, just like
the Five Light Elements, had to endure a constant flow
of afflictions and sufferings, but if they persisted, they
would eventually get their well-deserved crown. Since
this hymn of endurance, similarly to the hymn of vigilance
(Ps. 192,5–193,3), conspicuously follows a chronological
order, in which endurance (or vigilance) is described as
omnipresent from the mythological past to the tangible
present, it also includes a ‘pre-Manichaean’ or ‘Christian’
phase, where evidently only non-Manichaeans could be
referred to as examples. In this comprehensive vision,
characters of the AAA were cited not because the author
of the hymn or the Manichaeans around him ‘widely read’
the Acts, but because the logic of the hymn had simply
left no other choice. This interpretation would, I think,
also explain why references to the AAA are so rare in the
Manichaean literature.
After examining the church fathers’ opinion, I concluded
that the field where Manichaeans might have been
rather conversant with the traditions of AAA was that
of missionary activity. Similarly to the missionaries in
Sasanian Iran or Tang dynasty China, missionaries in Egypt
were naturally familiar with the contemporary religious
ideas of the local people. In order to proselytize among
these people, the missionaries, like their coreligionists
in Iran and China, did their best to find already existing
religious ideas and patterns that would support their novel
teachings. Their public use of AAA, which were basically
Christian scriptures, would also explain why church fathers,
despite the Manichaeans’ otherwise rather secretive use of
scriptures, were aware of the missionaries’ expertise in
the apocryphal scriptures. The expression ‘utuntur’ (in the
Decretum Gelasianum), similarly to the ‘confirmation’ of
teachings in other sources, thus indicates not the popularity
of the apocryphal scriptures among the Manichaean electi
and/or auditors in general, but refers to the missionaries’
practice of making use of these scriptures for their own
interest in public and other debates. This interpretation
would in turn also provide some rationale why church
117
fathers spared no effort to deprive Manichaeans of this
powerful missionary weapon.
Bibliography
Aldridge, Robert E. 1999. Peter and the “Two Ways”.
Vigiliae Christianae 53.3, 233–264.
Allberry, Charles R. C. 1938. A Manichaean Psalm-Book.
Part II. (Manichaean Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty
Collection. Volume II.) Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer.
BeDuhn, Jason D. and Harrison, Geoffrey 1997. The
Tebessa Codex: A Manichaean Treatise on Biblical
Exegesis and Church Order. In Paul Mirecki and Jason
BeDuhn (eds), Emerging from Darkness. Studies in
the Recovery of Manichaean Sources, 33–87. Leiden –
New York – Köln, Brill.
BeDuhn, Jason D. 2010. Augustine’s Manichaean
Dilemma, Volume 1. Conversion and Apostasy, 373-
388 C.E. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Bennett, Byard 2001. Iuxta unum latus terra tenebrarum:
The Division of Primordial Space in Anti-Manichaean
Writers’ Description of the Manichaean Cosmogony.
In Paul Mirecki and Jason BeDuhn (eds), The Light
and the Darkness. Studies in Manichaeism and its
World, 68–78. Leiden–Boston–Köln: Brill.
Bennett, Byard 2010. Review of Jason David BeDuhn
Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma for North American
Patristic Society panel 2010. http://cornerstone.
academia.edu/ ByardBennett/Papers/182310/Review_
of_Jason_David_BeDuhn_Augustines_Manichaean_
Dilemma_for_North_American_Patristic_Society_
panel_2010, accessed on April 25, 2011.)
Bienert, Wolfgang A. 1992. The Picture of the Apostles
in Early Christian tradition. In Schneemelcher and
Wilson 1992, 5−27.
Blatz, Beate 1991. The Coptic Gospel of Thomas. In
Schneemelcher and Wilson 1991, 110−116.
Bovon, François 2003. Canonical and Apocryphal Acts
of Apostles. Journal of Early Christian Studies 11.2,
165–194.
Böhlig, Alexander and Polotsky, Hans Jacob (eds, trans.)
1940. Kephalaia I, 1. Hälfte (Lieferung 1–10).
(Manichäische Handschriften der StAAAtlichen
Museen Berlin 1.) Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer.
Bremmer, Jan N. 1995. Women in the Apocryphal Acts of
John. In Jan N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of
John, 37–56. Kampen, Pharos.
Brown, Peter R. L. 1969. The Diffusion of Manichaeism
in the Roman Empire. The Journal of Roman Studies
59, 92–103.
Burris, Catherine and van Rompay, Lucas
2002. Thecla in Syriac Christianity
– Preliminary Observations. Hugoye: Journal of Syriac
Studies 5.2 [http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol5No2/
HV5N2BurrisVanRompay.html, accessed on February
28, 2011.
From Illahun to Djeme. PaPers PresenteD In honour oF ulrIch luFt
Clackson, Sarah and Hunter, Erica and Lieu, Samuel
N. C. and Vermes, Mark (eds) 1998. Dictionary of
Manichaean Texts. Vol. 1. Texts from the Roman
Empire. Texts in Syriac, Greek, Coptic and Latin.
Turnhout, Brepols.
Clark, Larry 1997. The Turkic Manichaean Literature. In
Paul Mirecki and Jason BeDuhn (eds), Emerging from
Darkness. Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean
Sources, 89–141. Leiden – New York – Köln, Brill.
Coyle, J. Kevin 2001. What did Augustine Know about
Manichaeism When He Wrote His Two Treatises De
moribus? In Johannes van Oort and Otto Wermelinger
and Gregor Wurst (eds), Augustine and Manichaeism
in the Latin West. Proceedings of the Fribourg–
Utrecht Symposium of the International Association of
Manichaean Studies (IAMS), 43–56. Leiden–Boston–
Köln, E.J. Brill.
Coyle, Kevin J. 2007. The Gospel of Thomas in
Manichaeism? In Louis Painchaud and Paul-Hubert
Poirier (eds), L’Évangile selon Thomas et les textes de
Nag Hammadi Québec, 29–31 Mai, 2003. Louvain−
Paris, Peeters − Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
Coyle, Kevin 2009. Women and Manichaeism’s Mission to
the Roman Empire. In Kevin Coyle 2009. Manichaeism
and its Legacy, 187–205. Leiden, Brill.
Davis, Stephen J. 2001. The Cult of Saint Thecla, a
Tradition of Women’s Piety in Late Antiquity. New
York, Oxford University Press.
Dobschütz, Ernst von 1912. Das Decretum Gelasianum
de Libris recipiendis et non recipiendis. Leipzig, J. C.
Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
Drijvers, H. J. W. 1992. The Acts of Thomas. In
Schneemelcher and Wilson 1992, 322−339.
Dubois, J.-D. 2002. Sur la notion d’apocryphe en milieu
manichéen. In: s. C. Mimouni (éd.), Apocryphité.
Histoire d’un concept transversal aux religions du
livre, 141−151. Turnhout, Brepols.
Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond 2004. Dictionary of
Manichaean Texts. Vol. III.1. Dictionary of Manichaean
Middle Persian and Parthian. Turnhout, Brepols.
Elliott, J. K. (ed.) 1993. The Apocryphal New Testament
A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an
English Translation. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Frankfurter, David 1997. Apocalypses Real and Alleged in
the Mani Codex. Numen 44, 60–73.
Funk, W.-P. 2002. ‘Einer aus tausend, zwei aus
zehntausend’: Zitate aus dem Thomas–Evangelium
in den koptischen Manichaica. In H.-G. Bethge et al.
(eds), For the Children: Perfect Instruction, 67−94.
Leiden, Brill.
Gardner, Iain 1995. The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The
Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translation with
Commentary. Leiden, E.J. Brill.
Gardner, Iain (with contr. Clackson, S. and Franzmann,
M. and Worp, K. A.) 1996. Kellis Literary Texts.
Vol. 1. (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 4; Oxbow
Monograph 69.) Oxford, Oxbow Books.
118
Gardner, Iain and Lieu, S.N.C. 2004. Manichaean Texts
from the Roman Empire. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Gardner, Iain and Worp, Klaas A. 1997. Leaves from a
Manichaean Codex. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 117, 139–155.
Gulácsi Zsuzsanna 2001. Manichaean Art in Berlin
Collections. (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series
Archaeologica et Iconographica 1.) Turnhout, Brepols.
Hayne, Léonie 1994. Thecla and the Church Fathers.
Vigiliae Christianae 48, 209–218.
Henning, Walter B. 1944. The Murder of the Magi. Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society 1944, 133–144. [Repr.: M.
Boyce et al. 1977. W. B. Henning: Selected Papers.
II, 139–150.] Téhéran–Liège: Bibliothèque Pahlavi;
Leiden: E.J. Brill.]
Jenkins, Geoffrey 1995. Papyrus 1 from Kellis: A Greek
text with affinities to the Acts of John. In Jan N.
Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts of John, 197–
216. Kampen, Pharos.
Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald 2006. The Life and Miracles of
Thekla: a Literary Study. Cambridge, Massachusetts –
London, Harvard University Press.
Junod, Éric and Kaestli, Jean-Daniel 1982. L’histoire des
Actes apocryphes des apôtres du IIIe au IXe siècle: le
cas des Actes de Jean. Genève–Lausanne–Neuchâtel,
La Concorde.
Kaestli, Jean-Daniel 1977. L’utilisation des actes
apocryphes des apôtres dans le manichéisme. In
Martin Krause (ed.), Gnosis and Gnosticism, 107–116.
Leiden, Brill.
Klijn, A. F. J. 1983. The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.
Vigiliae Christianae 37.2, 193–199.
Lanzillotta, Fernando L.R. 2004. The Apocryphal Acts of
Andrew – a New Approach to the Character, Thought
and Meaning of the Primitive Text. (Ph.D. diss.,
Rijksuniversiteit, Groningen)
Leloir, L. 1991. Les actes apocryphes d’André. In Aloïs
van Tongerloo and Sören Giversen (eds), Manichaica
Selecta, 191−201. Louvain, Brepols.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. 19922. Manichaeism in the Later
Roman Empire and Medieval China. A Historical
Survey. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament 63.) Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr. [1st
ed. 1988.]
Lim, Richard 1995. Public Disputation, Power, and Social
Order in Late Antiquity. Berkeley − Los Angeles −
Oxford, Unversity of California Press.
Mikkelsen, Gunner B. 2006. Dictionary of Manichaean
Texts in Chinese. Turnhout, Brepols.
Morano, Enrico 2007. A Working Catalogue of the
Berlin Sogdian Fragments in Manichaean Script.
In Maria Macuch and Mauro Maggi and Werner
Sundermann (eds), Iranian Languages and Texts
from Iran and Turan. Ronald E. Emmerick Memorial
Volume, 239–270. Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag.
Nagel, Peter 1967. Die Psalmoi Sarakoton des
manichäischen Psalmbuches. Orientalistische
Literaturzeitung 62.3–4, 123–130.
 Gábor Kósa: the ProtaGonIst-cataloGues oF the aPocryPhal acts oF aPostles In the coPtIc manIchaIca
Nagel, Peter 1973. Die apokryphen Apostelakten des 2.
und 3. Jahrhunderts in der manichäischen Literatur.
In K.-W. Tröger (ed.), Gnosis und Neues Testament,
149−182. Gerd Mohn, Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
Pesthy Monika 1996. Thecla among the Fathers of the
Church. In Jan N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal Acts
of Paul and Thecla, 164–178. Kampen, Pharos.
Pesthy Monika 1998. Cross and Death in the Apocryphal
Acts of the Apostles. In Jan N. Bremmer (ed.), The
Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and
Gnosticism, 123–133. Leuven, Peeters.
Pettipiece, Timothy 2008. Separating Light from
Darkness. Use of Biblical Traditions in the Kephalaia.
In Lorenzo DiTommaso and Lucian Turcescu (eds),
2008. The reception and interpretation of the Bible in
late antiquity: proceedings of the Montréal colloquium
in honour of Charles Kannengiesser, 11–13 October
2006, 419–428. Leiden, Brill.
Pettipiece, Timothy (n.d.) The Manichaean Reception of
Jewish and Christian Apocryphal Traditions. http://
www.arts.uottawa.ca/csla/en/Pettipiece%20-%20
Manichaean%20reception%20of%20apocrypha.pdf,
accessed on April 25, 2011.
PG: Patrologia Graeca: Patrologiae cursus completus,
series Graeco-Latina. [Edd. J. P. Migne et al. 1857–
1866. Paris. (162 vols.)]
PL: Patrologia Latina: Patrologiae cursus completus,
series Latina. [Edd. J. P. Migne et al. 1844–1864. Paris.
(221 vols.)]
Poirier, P.-H. 1986. L’Hymne de la perle et le manichéisme
à la lumière de Codex Manichéen de Cologne. In Luigi
Cirillo and Amneris Roselli (eds), Codex Manichaicus
Coloniensis. (Atti del Simposio Internazionale, Rende–
Amantea, 3–7 settembre 1984), 235−248. (Università
degli studi della Calabria, Centro interdipartimentale
de scienze religiose: Studi e ricerche 4.) Cosenza,
Marra.
Polotsky, Hans Jakob (ed.) 1934. Manichäische Homilien.
(Manichäische Handschriften der Sammlung A.
Chester Beatty 1.) Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer.
Poupon, G. H. 1998. L’origine africaine des Actus
Vercellenses. In Jan N. Bremmer (ed.), The Apocryphal
Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism, 192–
199. Leuven, Peeters.
Prieur, Jean-Marc 1992. The Acts of Andrew – Introduction.
In Schneemelcher and Wilson 1992, 101–118.
Rhee, Helen 2005. Early Christian Literature. Christ and
culture in the second and third centuries. London –
New York, Routledge.
Richter, Siegfried G. 1993. Exegetisch-literarkritische
Untersuchungen von Herakleidespsalmen des
koptisch-manichäischen Psalmenbuches. Altenberge,
Oros Verlage.
Russell, J. R. 2004. Hymn of the Pearl. Encyclopedia
Iranica (online): http://www.iranica.com/ articles/
hymn-of-the-pearl, accessed on March 7, 2011.
Schipper, Hendrik Gerhard and van Oort, Johannes 2000.
Sancti Leonis Magni Romani Pontificis Sermones et
Epistulae. Fragmenta Selecta. Sermons and Letters
119
against the Manichaeans. Selected Fragments.
(Introduction, Texts & Translations, Excursus,
Appendices, and Indices.) Turnhout, Brepols.
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm and Wilson, R. McL. (eds) 1991.
New Testament Apocrypha Vol. 1. − Gospels and
Related Writings. Louisville − London, Westminster
John Knox Press, James Clarke & Co.
Schneemelcher, Wilhelm and Wilson, R. McL. (eds) 1992.
New Testament Apocrypha Vol. 2. − Writings Relating
to the Apostles, Apocalypses and Related Subjects.
Louisville − London, Westminster John Knox Press,
James Clarke & Co.
Scopello, Madeleine 2005a. Femme et societé dans les
polemiques contre les Gnostiques: quelques notes
sur Irenée et Tertullien. In Madeleine Scopello 2005.
Femme, Gnose et Manichéisme. De l’espace mythique
au territoire du réel, 203–235. Leiden–Boston, Brill.
Scopello, Madeleine 2005b. Bassa la Lydienne. In Scopello,
Madeleine 2005. Femme, Gnose et Manichéisme.
De l’espace mythique au territoire du réel, 293–315.
Leiden–Boston, Brill.
Thomas, Christine M. 2003. The Acts of Peter, Gospel
Literature, and the Ancient Novel – Rewriting the Past.
Oxford–New York, Oxford University Press.
Tongerloo, Aloïs van 1982. La structure de la communauté
manichéenne dans le Turkestan Chinois à la lumière
des emprunts moyen-iraniens en ouighur. Central
Asiatic Journal 26, 262–288.
Tongerloo, Aloïs van 1997. Manichaean Female Deities.
In Luigi Cirillo and Aloïs van Tongerloo (a cura
di), Atti del terzo congresso internazionale di studi
Manicheismo e Oriente Cristiano Antico, Arcavata
di Rende – Amantea, 31 agosto – 5 settembre 1993,
361–374. (Manichaean Studies 3.) Turnhout, Brepols.
Wace, Henry 1911. Dictionary of Christian Biography and
Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an
Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. London,
J. Murray.
Williams, Frank 1994. The Panarion of Epiphanius of
Salamis: Book II and III. Leiden: Brill.
Zieme, Peter 2002. Paulus und Thekla in der türkischen
Überlieferung. Apocrypha 13, 53−62.
Zieme, Peter et al. (n.d.) Aesop’s fables in Central Asia.
http://www.vitterhetsakad.se/pdf/uai/Turfan.pdf,
accessed on March 13, 2011.]
120