¹ For the best overview of Manichaeism in its roots and developments East and West, see now Lieu, S. N. C., Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China: A Historical Survey (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985)Google Scholar. Cf. the review by Stroumsa, G. G., Classical Review n.s. 37 (1987) 95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Parts of this paper were read at the Symposium on Late Antiquity and Islam held at the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London, 26–28 June 1986. We wish to thank the conveners of the Symposium, Professor Averil Cameron and Dr. John Matthews, as well as Dr. Samuel Lieu, who chaired our session and raised interesting points in the discussion. We are also grateful to Professors Shlomo Pines and Shaul Shaked for their helpful comments on an earlier version.

² So called by Greek Christian heresiographers using a word play on the founder's name. It appears already in the earliest polemics in Greek; see, e.g., Titus of Bostra Contra Manichaeos 1.1 (ed. Lagarde, P. de; Berlin: Hertz, 1859) 1Google Scholar; and Epiphanius Pan. 66.1 (ed. Riggi, C.; Rome: Pontificum Institutum Altioris Latinitatis, 1967) 4Google Scholar; and see n. 46 and apud n. 47 below. In order not to overburden a complex argument, we have tried to keep instances and notes to a minimum, often ignoring texts parallel to those cited. Our documentation thus seeks to be representative rather than exhaustive.

³ On this perception of the Manichaean danger in the Roman Empire, see Lieu, Manichaeism, 91–95.

⁴ On Augustine, see particularly Koenen, L., “Augustine and Manichaeism in Light of the Cologne Mani Codex,” Illinois Classical Studies 3 (1978) 167–76Google Scholar. On Manichaean Christology, the standard work is still that of Rose, E., Die manichäische Christologie (2d ed.; Stud. Orient. Rel. 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1979)Google Scholar. A thesis recently submitted by I. Gardner at Manchester University is still unpublished. See also al-Bīrūnī, al-Āthār al-Bāqiya ʿan al-Qurūn al Khāliya—Chronologie orientalischer Völker (ed. Sachau, E.; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1923) 23Google Scholar (= Sayyid Hasan Taqizadeh, Mānī ve Dīn-o [Tehran, 1325 H] 201), hereafter Mani. Taqizadeh's meticulous compilation of Arabic and Persian sources on Manichaeism is concerned mainly with expositions of the religion, especially its mythology, rather than with refutations thereof.

⁵ For the description of Manichaeism as a Christian heresy (mainly with docetic features), see, e.g., the prologue of the “Seven Chapters” attributed to Zacharias of Mitylene, in Lieu, S. N. C., “An Early Byzantine Formula for the Renunciation of Manichaeism—the Capita VII contra Manicaeos of <Zacharias of Mityleno,>” JAC 26 (1983) 152–218Google Scholar, esp. 176. For the Devil's role, see Ibid., chap. 1 (Lieu 176, and 190 n. on 1.II: Mani is called the “vessel of the Devil,” which implies a Syriac word-play on his name). See also Epiphanius Pan. 66.2 (12–14, Riggi).

In the Byzantine world, “Manichaeism” soon became a term of opprobrium, thrown at various kinds of heretics whose beliefs were not even loosely connected to Manichaeism. Cf. n. 106 below. Together with the preference of scholars for descriptions of Manichaean mythology over argumentative polemics, this fact has often discouraged scholarly interest in Byzantine anti-Manichaean literature.

⁶ This devotion, which found its artistic expression in Manichaean book lore, was noted with envy by Muslims; see al-Samʿānī, al-Ansāb (ed. Margoliouth, ; Hydrabad, 1962) (= Mani, 246); Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntazam fī Taʾrīkh al-Mulūk waʾ l-Umam (Haidrabad, 1357H) 174 (= Mani, 257).Google Scholar

⁷ The most notorious example of Manichaean falsification of hadith is perhaps that of ʿAbd al- Karīm b. Abī al-ʿAwjāʾ: see al-Bīrūnī, Āthār, 67–68 (= Mani, 202); al-Baghdādī, al-Farq bayn al- Firaq (ed. Muhammad Badr) 167–68 (= Mani, 190). The terror of Manichaean infiltration is best formulated by al-Sharīf al-Murtadā, Ghurar al-fawāʾid wa-durar al-qalāʾid (= Amālī; ed. Mudammad Abū al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm; 1954] 1. 127 [= Mani, 193]). As in Byzantium (see n. 5 above), the accusation of “zandaqa” and even specifically dualism, was loosely used against all sorts of unorthodox views, resulting in the same lack of interest in anti-Manichaean literature on the part of modern scholars. See, e.g., Vajda, G., “Les zindiqs en pays d'Islam au début de la période Abbaside,” RSO 17 (1938) 173–229Google Scholar. For general studies of the Muslim reaction to Manichaeism see Schaeder, S. H., “Manichäer und Muslime,” ZDMG 7 (= 82) (1928) lxxviiGoogle Scholar; Colpe, C., “Anpassung des Manichäismus an den Islam (Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq),” ZDMG 109 (1959) 82–91Google Scholar; Abel, A., “Les source arabes sur le manichéisme,” Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves 16 (1961–1962) 31–73Google Scholar; Monnot, G., Penseurs musulmans et religions iraniennes, ʾAbd al- Jabbār et ses devanciers (Paris: Vrin, 1974).Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Davidson, I., Saadia's Polemic Against Hiwi al-Balkhī (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1915)Google Scholar; and see Stein, M., “Hīwī al-Balkhī, the Jewish Marcion,” Sefer Klausner (in Hebrew; Tel Aviv: 1937) 210–25.Google Scholar

⁹ Lieu (Manichaeism, 82–83) refers to the initial Arab tolerance under the Umayyads as accounting for this resurgence. This is plausible, although it might be more precise to speak of “preoccupation with other matters” than of “tolerance.”

¹⁰ For an analysis of Manichaean versions of some fundamental Gnostic myths, see Stroumsa, G. G., Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1984) part III.Google Scholar

¹¹ This question is raised by Polotsky, H.-J., “Manichäismus,” PWSup 6. 241–72, reprinted in his Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1971).Google Scholar

¹² See Stroumsa, G. G., “‘Seal of the Prophets’: The Nature of a Manichaean Metaphor,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986) 61–74.Google Scholar

¹³ In Epicteti encheiridion 27 (Dübner, 71–72). We follow Lieu's translation of the paragraph, Manichaeism, 23.

¹⁴ We may refer here at least to Pépin, J., Mythe et allégorie: les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-chrétiennes (2d ed.; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979).Google Scholar

¹⁵ In Epicteti encheiridion 27. On the Manichaean use of mythology cf. Alexander of Lycopolis Contra Manichaei opiniones 10, and see A. Villey's discussion in his translation of the work (Lycopolis, Alexandre de, Contre la doctrine de Mani [Paris: Cerf, 1985] 247–49).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Abū Mansūr al-Māturīdī, Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (ed. Khulaif, Fatḥullah; Beirut: dār al-Mashriq, 1970) 157,17–18.Google Scholar

¹⁷ ‘Abd al-Jabbār al-hamadhānī, al-Mughnī fī Abwāb al-Tawḥīd waʾl-ʿAdl 5 (ed. Maḥmūd Muḥammad al-Khudayrī; Cairo, 1958) 9:4–6, translated by Monnot, Penseurs musulmans, 151.Google Scholar

¹⁸ G. Vajda's appreciation of al-Māturīdī's account as “de moyenne importance” is probably too harsh, as Vajda's own interest in the text would demonstrate (“Le témoignage d'al-Māturīdī sur la doctrine des manichéens, des dayṣanites et des marcionites,” Arabica 13 [1965] 2–3 ). G. Monnot's somewhat more generous evaluation seems more justified. On the importance of ʿAbd al-Jabbār's account, see Monnot, Penseurs musulmans, 19–20, 118.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See, e.g., Conf. 3.6; 4.7. Cf. Brown, P., Augustine of Hippo (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967) 46–53, esp. 48–49.Google Scholar

²⁰ See G. G. Stroumsa, “Alexander of Lycopolis and Titus of Bostra: A Pagan and a Christian Refutation of Manichaean Dualism,” in J. Bregman, ed., Neoplatonism and Gnosis (Albany: SUNY Press, forthcoming). See also C. Andresen, “Antike und Christentum,” TRE 3. 69–71.

²¹ For these terms see Peters, J. R. T. M., God's Created Speech: A Study in the Speculative Theology of … Abd al-Jabbar (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 71–72, 82–83; for its use in anti-Manichaean contexts, see, e.g., (the Muslim) ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mughnī, 9:6, and (the Jewish) Dāwūd ibn Marwān al- Muqammiṣ, ʿIṣhrūn Maqāla (ed. and trans. S. Stroumsa; Jerusalem: Magnes, forthcoming).Google Scholar

²² See, e.g., Augustine Conf. 3.7; 5.10, and particularly De utilitate credendi, 1.2; this text is quoted by Villey, Contre la doctrine, 199, who estimates (rightly, to our minds) that methods of argumentation should not have been very different in Egypt and concludes: “Il ressort de là que les manichéens devaient faire de la raison un usage surtout polémique, pour ruiner les thèses de leurs adversaires et surtout, s'agissant de Chrétiens, de ce qu'ils estimaient être les inconséquences de leur exégèse.”

²³ The third one is cult. Sermon 86.4 according to the classification of R. Dolle, in Léon le Grand, Sermons (SC 200) 4. 184–85: “I n qua lex est mendatium, diabolus religio, sacrificum turpitudo.”

²⁴ For two early authors, see the instances quoted in Stroumsa, “Alexander of Lycopolis and Titus of Bostra.”

²⁵ In Epicteti encheiridion 27.69–70. Cf. Hadot, I., “Die Widerlegung des Manichäismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 51 (1969) 31–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. beginning, and idem, Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin: Hiérocles et Simplicius (Paris: ÉtAug, 1978)49–51.Google Scholar

²⁶ See, e.g., Zacharias of Mitylene Antithésis, in Demetrakopoulos, A., ed., Ekklesiastiké Bibliothēkē (Leipzig, 1866) 3, 13Google Scholar (47). Zacharias probably wrote the Antirrhēsis towards the end of his life, after 527. Cf. G. Bardy, in DThC 15. 3679, and Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (2d ed.; Munich: Beck, 1977) 385. Cf. apud n. 41 below.Google Scholar

²⁷ Contra Manichaeos 1.23 (de Lagarde, 14).

²⁸ Antirrhēsis 15 (Demetrakopoulos, § 3).

²⁹ Contra Manichaei opiniones 8 (Brinkmann, 13–14; Villey, 17).

³⁰ Ibid., 6–8 (Brinkmann, 9–13; Villey, 14–15).

³¹ See, e.g., Augustine Conf. 3.7 for the Manichaean anti-Christian argument and Augustine C. Epist. Fund. 23.25 for the Christian counter argument. These texts are discussed in Stroumsa, G., “The Incorporeality of God: Context and Implications of Origen's Position,” Religion 13 (1983) 345–58, esp. 352–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Contra Manichaeos 3, in Kotter, B., Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos 4. (Patristische Texte und Studien; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1981) 355.Google Scholar

³³ John the Grammarian Disputatio cum Manichaeo 1.5–13, in Richard, M. and Aubineau, M., eds., lohannis Caesariensis Opera (CC, ser. graeca; Turnhout: Brepols, 1977) 119–21.Google Scholar

³⁴ Disputatio cum Photini Manichaeo 40 (PG 88. 565–68). Paul also notes that if divine substance is indivisible, the souls cannot originate in it (Ibid., col. 536). On Paul the Persian and his dialogue with Photinus, see Lieu, Manichaeism, 171–73. It should be pointed out that the years around 527 (when Justinian, together with Justin I, published a harsh edict against the Manichaeans) seem to have witnessed a sort of renaissance of Manichaeism in Byzantium, reflected by Simplicius as well as by the writings of Paul, Zacharias, and John. Cf. Hadot, “Widerlegung,” 32, who refers to Jany, J., Hérésies et factions dans l'Empire byzantin du IV^e au VII^e siècle (Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1968) esp. 334–39Google Scholar (a work that should be read with care). See also Jarry, , “Les hénésies dualistes dans l'Empire byzantin du V^e au VII^e siècle,” BIFAO 63 (1965) 89–119.Google Scholar

³⁵ Antirrhēsis 13 (Demetrakopoulos, 7).

³⁶ See, e.g., John of Damascus C. Manich. 76 (Kotter, 392); cf. Ibid., 31, 70 (Kotter, 369, 388).

³⁷ E.g., Titus, C. Manich. 1.23 (de Lagarde, 14).

³⁸ This point has been demonstrated by Shaked, Sh., “The Notions Mēnōg and Gētīg in the Pahlavi Texts and their Relation to Eschatology,” AcOr 33 (1971) 59–107Google Scholar. For the Zoroastrian anti-Manichaean polemics, see the Škand Gumānīk Vičār of Martan Farrux, in the edition of Ménasce, P. J. de, Une apologétique mazdéenne du IX^e siècle (Fribourg: Université de Fribourg, 1945) chap. 16,227–61.Google Scholar

³⁹ See, e.g., al-Muqammiṣ, ʿIshrūn Maqāla, chap. 5, fols. 15–22; chap. 8, fol. 36; Māturīdī, Tawḥīd, 113,1–6.

⁴⁰ See, e.g., ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mughnī, 61:13 (on the authority of al-Warrāq), and the discussion in Mughnī, 22–24 (esp. 23:3 on ḥayz, the technical term for atom); Māturīdī, Tawḥīd, 157–21.

⁴¹ Kitāb al-Amānāt waʾl-lʿtiqādāt (ed. Qafih, J.; Jerusalem/New York: Sura, 1970) chap. 1.3, p. 56.12–14. Other mutakallimūn, for whom absence was a real entity, do not usually use this argument. See apud n. 26 above.Google Scholar

⁴² Amānāt, 4.3, pp. 155.26–156.5.

⁴³ See ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mughnī, 11.16–19; 21–22; 62.13.

⁴⁴ On the dualistic background for al-Naẓẓām's theory of latency see J. van Ess, “Kumūn,” The Encyclopedia of Islam (new ed.) 5. 384–85, and see idem, “Ḍirār b. ʿAmr und die ‘Cahmiya’: Biographie einer vergessenen Schule,” Der Islam 43 (1967) 258, 260, and passim; and see also al- Bāqilānī, al-Tamhīd (ed. al-Khudairi, M. M. and Abū, M. A.; Ridā; Cairo, 1947) 67–75Google Scholar (= Mani, 446); Jābir b. Ḥayyān, K. al-Khawāṣṣ al-Kabīr (ed. P. Kraus; Cairo: 1354 H) 229 (= Mani, 76); Pines, S., Beiträge zur islamischen Atomenlehre (Berlin, 1936) 99–100 and n. 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See, e.g., al-Murtaḍā, Amālī 138:14 (= Mani, 197); al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Ḥayawān (ed. ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn; Cairo, 1940) 4. 449:4–7Google Scholar (= Mani, 93); al-Ashʿarī, Maqālāt al-Islāmiyīn wa-lkhtilāf al-Muṣallīn (ed. Ritter, H.; Istanbul, 1929) 332:9–10Google Scholar (= Mani, 122). Phrases such as lam nara (ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mughnī, 10:5) in the description of Manichaean claims are probably a veiled reference to the same doctrine. Monotheistic writers turn this argument against the Manichaeans; see, e.g., al- Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm, al-Radd ʿalā … lbn al-Muqaffaʾ (ed. Guidi, M.; Rome, 1927) 4.10Google Scholar, 5.10–11, 13.7, 80. This polemical shift is a reaction not only to the general Manichaean pretension of objectivity (as suggested by Monnot, , “Matoridi et le Manichéisme,” MIDEO 13 [1975] 49)Google Scholar, but specifically to the Manichaean insistence on the testimony of the senses, the ʿyān. The importance of this epistemological principle for the rejection of creatio ex nihilo is clearly seen in al-Māturīdī, Tawḥīd 27:20–28:3.

⁴⁶ ʿIshrūn Maqālā, chap. 14, fol. 58.

⁴⁷ See n. 2 above.

⁴⁸ al-Muqammiṣ, ʿIshrūn Maqālā, chap. 9, fol. 43v (al-nūr alladhī nushāhidu); ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mughnī, 22:11–14 (al-nūr al-maʿqūl). Al-Qāsim b. Ibrāhīm, lbn al-Muqaffʿa, 4–8 (= Mani, 78); and ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mughnī, 51:21–52:2 are polemical uses of this Manichaean concept.

⁴⁹ E.g., Māturīdī, Tawḥīd, 158: 4–10; Nishwān al-Ḥimyarī, el-Ḥūr al-ʿīn (ed. Muṣṭafā, Kamāl; Egypt: al-Khanjī, 1948) 133; ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mughnī, 10:5–6, 11:8; and see Vajda, “Māturīdī,” 14–18.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Quoted according to the translation of Mitchell, C. W., S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan (London: Williams & Norgate, 1921) 2. xcv.Google Scholar

⁵¹ On the core of the polemics between Faustus and Augustine, see G. G. Stroumsa, “The Words and the Works: Religious Knowledge and Salvation in Augustine and Faustus of Milevis,” in S. N. Eisenstadt and I. F. Silver, eds., Cultural Traditions and Worlds of Knowledge: Explorations in the Sociology of Knowledge (Philadelphia: ISHI, forthcoming).

⁵² Contra Manichaeos 1.1; 1.3 (de Lagarde, 1, 3).

⁵³ Ibid., 1.29 (de Lagarde, 18 = 1.24 in numeration in PG 18).

⁵⁴ For an overview, see D. Nestle, “Freiheit,” RAC 8. 269–306.

⁵⁵ See, e.g., H.-G. Beck (= Hildebrand, O.), Vorsehung und Vorbestimmung in der theologischen Literatur der Byzantiner (OCA 114; Rome: Pontifical Institute of Oriental Studies, 1937) 3–17Google Scholar. See further Nagel, P., “Mani-Forschung und Patristik” (TU 120; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1977) 147–50.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ On the conflict between these two thinkers, see esp. Brown, P., “Sexuality and Society in the Fifth Century A.D.: Augustine and Julian of Eclanum,” in E. Gabla, ed., Tria Corda: scritti in onore di Arnaldo Momigliano (Como: Free Press, 1983) 49–70Google Scholar, and Clark, E. A., “Vitiated Seeds and Holy Vessels: Augustine's Manichaean Past,” in idem, Ascetic Piety and Women's Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity (Lewiston/Queenston: Edwin Mellen, 1987) 291–349. We thank Professor John M. Rist for calling our attention to this interesting study.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See, e.g., John of Damascus, C. Manich. 14 (Kotter, 358) and parallels quoted there. Cf. also nn. 26 and 41 above.

⁵⁸ Antirrhésis 3 (Demetrakopoulos).

⁵⁹ Ibid., 4; 47, 13 (Dematrakopoulos).

⁶⁰ S. Ephraim's Refutations, 2. xcv.

⁶¹ C. Manich. 37 (Kotter, 373–74).

⁶² Ibid., 71–72 (Kotter, 389–90).

⁶³ See, e.g., J. Moingt, “Polymorphie du corps du Christ,” in Corps des Dieux (=Le temps de la reflexion, 11 [Paris: N.R.F., 1986]) 47–62; and G. G. Stroumsa, “Caro Salutis Cardo: Shaping the Person in Early Christian Thought,” forthcoming.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Disputatio 43 (Richard-Aubineau, 123).

⁶⁵ Disputationes 1 (PG 88. 543).

⁶⁶ Antirrhēsis 4 (Demetrakopoulos); cf. John of Damascus C. Manich. 15 (Kotter, 360).

⁶⁷ C. Manich. 1.32 (= 1.26–27 in PG 18; de Lagarde, 20).

⁶⁸ Titus of Bostra C. Manich. 2.3 (= 2.2 in PG 18; de Lagarde, 26–27).

⁶⁹ C. Manichaei opiniones 16, 25 (Brinkmann, 23–24 = Villey, 30, 41).

⁷⁰ In Epicteti encheiridion 27 (Dübner, 72–73).

⁷¹ Enn. 2.9.

⁷² Titus C. Manich. 1.2 (de Lagarde, 2).

⁷³ On Manichaean encratism, see most recently Ries, J., “L'enkrateia et ses motivations dans les Kephalaia coptes de Medînet Mâdi,” in U. Bianchi, ed.. La tradizione dell' enkrateia: motivazioni ontologiche e protologiche (Rome: Ateneo, 1985) 369–83.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ John of Damascus C. Manich. 14 (Kotter, 359). For Egyptian instances, see Stroumsa, G. G., “The Manichaean Challenge to Egyptian Christianity,” in B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring, eds., The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 307–19.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Paul the Persian Disputationes, Dialogus III (PG 88. 547–49).

⁷⁶ See, e.g., Jaʿfar al-ṣādiq, Tawḥīd al-Mufaọọal (Najaf, 1352 H) 89–90 (= Mani, 75); Vajda, G., Al-Kitāb al-Muḥtawī de Yūsuf al-Baṣīr, texte, traduction et commentaire (ed. D. R. Blumenthal; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 139, 688; Saʿadya, Amānāt, IX.7 p. 278.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ E.g., ʿAbd al-Jabbār (Mughnī, 29:17–19), who speaks of the unity of the person (al-jumla al-ḥayya); also, the very common argument from the ability of the sinner to repent, e.g., Saʿadya, Amānāt, 1, 3, p. 53; al-Khayyāṭ, Kitāb al-Intiṣār …, Le Livre du Triomphe (ed. Nyberg, H. S.; Cairo: Bibliothèque Egyptienne, 1925) 30–31; Māturīdī, Tawḥīd, 115, 162, 163, 179; Yūsuf al Baṣīr, Muḥtawī, 688.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ The relevant texts were analyzed in a comprehensive way by Watt, W. Montgomery, Free Will and Predestination in Early Islam (London: Luzac, 1948).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See his Disputatio Saraceni et Christiani (PG 94, cols. 1585–98 esp. 1589–92). ET by Voorhis, John W., “The Discussion of a Christian and a Saracen by John of Damascus,” Moslem World 25 (1935) 266–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 270, and see the discussion of this text in Sahas, D. J., John of Damascus on Islam, The “Heresy of the Ishmaelites” (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 99–112.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See n. 98 below.

⁸¹ See Nyberg, H. S., “Zum Kampf zwischen Islam und Manichäismus,” OLZ 32 (1929) 430–31.Google Scholar

⁸² See, e.g., ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Faṭl al-lʿtizāl … (ed. Sayyid, Fuʾād; Tunis, 1974) 165:11–13. On Wāṣil, see S. Stroumsa, “The Origins of the Muʿtazila Reconsidered,” in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 9 (forthcoming).Google Scholar

⁸³ Škand-Gumān Vičār, chap. 11, 194, p. 141, and 208, p. 147. Of course Muslim polemical works were meant more for internal consumption than as missionary tools.

⁸⁴ Muḥtawī, 139,687.

⁸⁵ On al-Warraq's Manichaeism, see Colpe, “Anpassung des Manichäismus,” and Stroumsa, S., “The Barāhima in Early Kalām,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 6 (1985) 230–31 n. 5. Al-Warraq's Manichaeism suggests that his student's qawl fī al-ithnayn was also of the Manichaean sort.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Nyberg's introduction to his edition of the Kitāb al-intiḥār, 34–35; Ibn al-Murtaḍā, ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazila, Die Klassen der Muʿtaziliten (ed. Diwald-Wilzer, S.; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1961) 92:3–4.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Kitāb al-Dalāʾil waʾl-lʿtibār ʿaiā al-Khalq waʾl-Tadbīr (ed. Muḥamad Rāghib al-Ṭabbākh; Ḥalab, 1928)Google Scholar, and see Banet, D. Z., “A Common Source for Baḥya b. Yosef and al-Ghazālī,” Magnes Anniversary Book (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1938) 23–30.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Māturīdī, Tawḥīd, 215:8–216:3; al-Baghdādī, Farq, 113 ff. (= Mani, 185–87).

⁸⁹ See Nyberg, ed., Le Livre du Triomphe.

⁹⁰ In this context the human being is compared to a chained slave who is asked to perform an impossible act (e.g., al-Muqammiṣ, ʿIshrūn Maqāla, chap. 12, fol. 53), or to a donkey given an order to fly like an eagle (Qurra, Theodore Abū, “Maymar yuḥaqqiqu liʾl-insān ḥurriya thābita,” Mayāmir Thāudūrūs Abī Qurra (ed. Bāsha, Q.; Beirut, 1904) 10–11.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Mughnī, 35:4–36:7.

⁹² The problem of human acts is thoroughly discussed by Gimaret, D., Théories de l'acte humain en théologie musulmane (Paris: Vrin, 1980)Google Scholar. On the Mujbira, see Ibid., 61.

⁹³ ʿIshrūn Maqālā, chap. 12, and see Vajda, G., “La finalité de la création de l'homme selon un théologien juif du IX^e siècle,” Oriens 15 (1962) 61–85. See also ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mughnī 8.330: 6ff., who repeatedly compares the Mujbira to the Majūs.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Tawḥīd, see n. 85 above.

⁹⁵ E.g., Saʿadya, Amānāt, 4.4, pp. 156:31–156:4.

⁹⁶ Ibid., 1.3, pp. 53–54.

⁹⁷ See the use of this ḥadīth by al-Māturīdī, Tawḥīd, 88:13–89:1 (against the Muʿtazila, and where the issue is God's free will) as well as by a Muʿtazilite, lbn al-MurtaḌā, Bāb dhikr al-Muʿaiila min kitāb al-munya waʾl-amal (ed. Arnold, T. W.; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1902) 10:4. On the name “Qadariyya” see Watt, Free Will, 48–53; Sahas, John of Damascus, 105 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See, e.g., Watt, Free Will; Ess, J. Van, “Les Qadarites et la Ghailāniya de Yazid III,” Sl 31 (1970) 269–86Google Scholar; Laoust, H., Les schismes dans l'Islam (Paris: Payot, 1965) 44.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ See n. 90 above.

¹⁰⁰ Abū Qurra, “Maymar yuḥaqqiqu,” 15, in reference to Matt 12:33.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., 10, 17–18. An outline of Abū Qurra's anti-Manichaean polemics is given by S. H. Griffith, “The Controversial Theology of Theodore Abū Qurrah (c. 750–c. 820 A.D.): A Methodological, Comparative Study in Christian Arabic Literature” (Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1978) 238–40.

¹⁰² Abel, “Les sources arabes,” 33.

¹⁰³ To be sure, Christian authors had to beware Muslim scrutiny in their Arabic polemical writings, and usually avoided attacking Islam openly. This caution, however, did not prevent Abū Qurra, as well as other Christian theologians, from polemicizing against Islam. In such cases Abū Qurra alluded to Islam through the use of Quranic verses or of such veiled references as “the outsiders” (al-barrāniyūn). For an analysis of such transparent hints see now Griffith, S. H., “Theodore Abū Qurrah's Arabic Tract on the Christian Practice of Venerating Images,” JAOS 105 (1985) 66–68.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See n. 34 above.

¹⁰⁵ See, e.g., from the sixth century Leontius of Byzantium De sectis 3.2 (PG 86.1, 1213); Theodore of Raithu De incarnatione (PG 91. 1485 C-D ). From the seventh century we have George the Higoumen, Chapters to Epiphanius concerning Heresies, (ed. Richard, M., Epetēris Etaireias Byzantinōn Spoudiōn 25 [1955] 331)Google Scholar, who mentions the Gospels of Philip and of Thomas, and Anastasius Sinaita, Viae Dux, passim (Utheman, K.-H., ed., CC ser. graeca 8 [Turnhout-Louvain: Brepols-Louvain University, 1981]), see index; cf. particularly XXII 3.34 (p. 298) which seems to imply direct contact with a Manichaean.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Gouillard, J., “Une hérésie protée: le manichéisme des Byzantins,” Cahiers du Cercle Ernest Renan 127 (1982) 157–65 esp. 159.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ “ZurKampf,” 427–48,430–31. See also Sh. Pines in Cambridge History of Islam, 2. 791.

¹⁰⁸ The possibility of Christian influence on the Qadariyya was discussed last by Sahas, John of Damascus, 104–6, and by Cook, M., Early Muslim Dogma: A Source Critical Study (Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 1981) 149–50, 156.Google Scholar