It is well known that the Gnostics solved the question of the combination of the divine and human principles in Jesus in the most radical way: instead of the dual Christ, they represent "two Christs", or "Christ and Jesus", the deity and the human teacher of the faith.

The distinction between the heavenly and the earthly Christ is a characteristic feature of Gnostic Christology. Thus, according to the teaching of the Gnostic Valentinus, the heavenly Saviour is united with the lower Christ only at baptism [Irenaeus of Lyons, I, VII, 2]. Approximately the same is postulated in the teaching of the Gnostic Mark [ibid., I, XV, 2-3] and in the Ophite doctrine, according to which the heavenly Christ descended into the earthly Jesus [ibid., I, XXX, 12-13]; compare the teaching of the Valentinians, where the heavenly Christ is identified with light.

A Gnostic document from Nag Hammadi, the so-called "Treatise without a Name", states that together with the church, Sabaoth (zd. name of the lower demiurge, creator of the material world) created "Jesus Christ, like the Savior who is above, in the Ogdoad" 1 [Die koptisch-gnostische..., 1962, p. 153]. In other words, the earthly Jesus here represents only the likeness of the heavenly Savior, just as the earthly man, according to the Gnostics, is only the likeness of his heavenly prototype.

This is particularly evident in texts such as the Gnostic book The Three-Faced Protennoia, also found in Nag Hammadi. On the one hand, Christ appears here as a deity:

"They blessed the perfect Son, Christ, God, the one who came into being" [Schenke, p. 38, 21-23].

On the other hand, it refers to the earthly Jesus as a teacher of faith, in whom one of the heavenly powers was incarnated.

Manichaeism, as a Gnostic-type religion with a strict dichotomy of material and spiritual principles, took this trend to the extreme. There is a distinction between the deity Jesus, who is referred to in many sources as the Shining Jesus, and the earthly Jesus, who is one of the Apostles-preachers of the original, periodically revived true religion in the world2.

As a result of the appearance of the image of the Third Messenger, the archons of heaven and the underworld rebelled; Jesus the Shining was called to subdue them. He restored the ascent of the three light elements, which were blocked by the rebellious forces of Darkness, and humbled the archons in the heavens and at the foundation of the earth. After that, he was incarnated in Eve, came to the newly created Adam, who was in ignorance, and made him eat from the tree of knowledge, revealed to him the secret of the origin of his soul and the way to salvation.

Jesus Radiance has three emanations: the Mind of Light, which spiritualizes the true church, the Christ-Child (see Infant), and the eschatological Judge. Until the end of the world, he remains on the Ship of Waters, i.e., on the Moon. Together with the Mind of Light and the Virgin of Light, Jesus Radiance is the prototype of the true church. He sends the Mind of Light to the Apostle

1 That is, in the pantheon of eight emanation deities.

2 For more information, see, for example: [Kephalaia, 1940, 33.3 - 34.5, 48.8 - 9; 69.12 - 13]. For the above-mentioned topic, see, for example, pp. 35.13-19 of this treatise. For the Russian translation, see [Kefalaia..., 1998].

page 27
for the creation of the true church, when the former church degrades and becomes a false teaching; therefore, he is called "the father of all the Apostles" (sometimes called the Mind of Light). At the end of the world, he will summon a great Thought to create the Final Image.

So, the main function of Jesus-Radiance is the founder of the true church. He played the role of an educator under Adam and periodically sends his emanations to the true church, enlightening its founder-the Apostle.

In addition, based on the analysis of sources, researchers conclude that this deity also has an eschatological function of a judge: at the end of the world, Jesus the Shining will sit on the Bem throne and judge souls [Puech, 1937, p. 247-286]. Sources (at least Coptic ones) show that this role usually belongs rather to one of the emanations of Jesus-the Radiance, the deity called the Judge. There are, however, testimonies where the role of Judge is assigned to Jesus. Here's how the Coptic"Psalms of Bema" put it:

"For judgment is coming, and the Bema will be established. For Jesus is my Judge 3, [who sits] on it and judges people... " [A Manichaean Psalm-Book, 1938, p. 34. 22-24].

There is another psalm from the same cycle, where it is not very clear at all who exactly is intended for the role of Judge-Jesus himself-the Radiance or his emanation, which takes the place of the son in the Gnostic triad. In any case, Jesus and the Judge are not the same thing here:

"These are the Bema of Jesus, and the Virgins of Light, and the Judges of the Church. This is the sign of the Bema of the Judge who is in the air " [Kephalaia, 1940, 20.31-21.2].

Perhaps only one logical explanation can be found for these two different testimonies within the same psalm cycle: the functions of eschatological Judge are assigned to both Jesus and his emanation.

Many researchers have dealt with questions of Manichaean Christology. First of all, we should mention the classic work of O. Rose "Manichaean Christology". As early as 1937, it was defended as a dissertation in Marburg and reprinted in 1979 without significant changes [Rose, 1979]. The book contains a semantic and doctrinal analysis of Manichaean Christology.

Rose identifies the following hypostases of Jesus in Manichaeism:

1) Jesus the Shining as the enlightener of Adam and the father of the Apostles-the embodiment of divine Intelligence.

2) Jesus suffering-light bound and "crucified" in confusion.

3) The historical Jesus is one of the Apostles.

4) The eschatological Jesus is the guide of the soul at its ascension and the Judge of souls at the Last Judgment.

5) The Cosmic Jesus.

Subsequently, K. Rudolph studied Manichaean Christology and identified three hypostases for Jesus: the Shining Jesus, the historical Jesus, and the Suffering Jesus. He mostly follows J. Ries (1953). Analyzing the three titles of Jesus in Coptic documents ("Light", "Savior", and "Judge"), he identifies three traditional hypostases of Jesus in Manichaeism: heavenly, cosmic, and historical. Among other things, Reece makes an attempt in these works to bring the Manichaean Jesus closer to the Buddha.

A. I. Sidorov rightly points out that in Augustine (On Heresies) only two hypostases of the Manichaean Jesus are distinguished: the Shining Jesus and the historical Jesus (Sidorov, 1985). To this, however, it should be added that in other anti-Manichaean writings of Augustine there is a definition of Jesus patibilis "Jesus suffering", meaning a third, somewhat different hypostasis.

3 This is how this poorly preserved passage in the Albury edition was restored. A modern researcher and publisher of psalms, G. Wurst, reconstructs it differently: "This is Jesus, the great Judge" (Wurst, 1996, p. 88).

page 28
We can say the following about all these classifications. The functions of the cosmic," apostolic, " heavenly, and eschatological Jesus do not contradict each other, and there is no reason to distinguish them by attributing them to separate hypostases: these are different functions of the same deity (in fact, almost all deities in the Manichaean system have several functions). As for the" Jesus suffering " (Augustine's Jesus patibilis), this is most likely just an allegory of the light principle connected in matter. This name is not accepted in all sources: for example, in Coptic texts it corresponds to the definition of "Cross of Light". Apparently, the allegorical "Jesus Suffering" has no real relation to any hypostasis of Jesus-Radiance. Perhaps this is a variant of the name "Cross of Light" in later Manichaean texts - more precisely, in Latin documents of the Augustinian era.

It should be noted that in Coptic texts only the heavenly Jesus is referred to as the" Shining Jesus". An exception is one passage in the manuscript of the second part of the treatise "Kefalaia"published by V.-P. Funk:

Jesus the Shining is the one who came and appeared in the world, and was crucified by the enemy who rebelled against him [Kephalaia, 1999, p. 302: 25-27].

One might assume that this refers to the heavenly Jesus, and "crucifixion" means the cosmic captivity of the Cross of light in matter. But then these lines contradict what we know about the Manichaean doctrine from other sources: the divine Jesus Radiance is not depicted as "crucified" in either the literal or allegorical sense. Most likely, we are talking here about the "historical Jesus" and the words about the crucifixion should be understood in the literal sense.

Thus, two hypostases are distinguished: the divine (Jesus-Radiance) and the "apostolic" (historical Jesus). Although they are related to each other (through the "heavenly church" and the sequence of emanations), they must be considered separately.

This dichotomy brings to mind the Christological views of the Gnostics.

The definition of "Radiance" is applied to Jesus as a "light" - a mediator between the divine and the earthly world. (See the transformation of the visionary in apocalyptic literature and his transformation into a heavenly force.) Perhaps, after all, the idea of the transfiguration of the dogma goes back to this tradition, and Mani, with his characteristic radical dualism, finally separated these two states.

The epithet "shining, shining one" most likely goes back to the New Testament image of the transfigured Christ: "and his face shone like the sun" (Mt 17:2). Obviously, it was this radiant Jesus who was presented in the Manichaean canon as a deity and finally separated from his historical "prototype".

The individual functions of the Radiant Jesus can also be traced back to the corresponding provisions of the Gnostic teachings. The epithet" shining, shining "among the Mandeans, for example, is applied to the reincarnating carrier of the gnosis Abel, who in the Mandean books is called "Abel-Radiance".

In many Gnostic texts, Jesus appears as the enlightener of Adam and the founder of the true church. On the eschatological vocation of the Thought of Life by Jesus-compare the teaching of the Valentinians: at the end of time, the Thought and Jesus must form a pair-syzygy.

The historical Jesus is the Christ of the New Testament. According to Manichaean teaching, this is the penultimate (or one of the last) in the line of Apostles, the founders of the true church. In a short version of the list of Apostles (Buddha-Zarathustra-Jesus-Mani) Jesus turns out to be the forerunner of Mani himself.

Much has been written about the docetic nature of Manichaean Christology. In a number of Mani's epistles, we see the position that Christ has only one nature [Texte zum Manichäismus, 1954, pp. 33-34]. Many heresiological sources, starting with the Acta Archelai, claim that the Manichaeans considered the carnal body and the crucifixion of Christ to be an appearance, an illusion.

page 29
Thus, Augustine, who knew the Manichaean doctrine by no means firsthand, in his treatise "Against Faustus" says::

XI, 3." And the very death of Christ, and the burial, and the resurrection, he does not recognize, because he says that Christ did not possess a mortal body, from which there would have been a real death " [Patrologiae cursus..., vol. XLII, p. 247].

XVI, 12. "...there are some who, as you dare say, prophesied that Christ would come in false flesh, suffer false death, and show false wounds to doubting disciples "(ibid., p. 322).

Theodoret of Cyrus in his anti-Manichaean treatise also speaks of docetism 4 Mani:

(I. 26) "... But the Lord, he says, was clothed neither in flesh nor in soul, but looked like a man, and there is nothing human in him; and the cross, the passion, and death were appearances. And they deny the bodily resurrection as a myth" [Patrologiae cursus..., vol. 83, 378 In ff].

We also see this in the case of Severus of Antioch, who, according to the conclusions of A.-Sh. Puech, 1908, p.151, drew his information about Manichaeism from the same source as Theodoret. Severus says in one of the homilies: the Manichaeans claim that Christ suffered the passion "by some appearance and appearance", that he did not put on flesh, but even took the cross (or "by external appearance (representation) and appearance" [Aubineau, 1983, p.62-63].

Docetic views prevailed in the teachings of the Gnostics. (See the testimony of Irenaeus: according to the doctrine of Saturninus, Christ was disembodied "and only ostensibly appeared to be a man" [Irenaeus of Lyons, I, XXIV, 2].) Basilides denied the corporeality of Christ and the authenticity of the passion of Christ, claiming that the transfigured Simon of Cyrene suffered for him, " and Jesus himself took the form of Simon, stood there and laughed at them" [ibid., 4]. As far as can be understood from the presentation of the Valentinian teaching in Irenaeus, there is also an element of docetism there. Thus, Mani may have inherited docetic views from Syriac Gnosticism. But if we turn to the actual Manichaean texts, we can suspect that the docetism of the Manichaeans is in any case not original.

As for Mani's epistles, we know that along with his original letters, there may have been (and were) apocryphal ones among the Manichaeans, which were only attributed to Mani.

In the Coptic Manichaean books from Medinat Madi, the passion of Christ is described without any hint of the fact that Christ allegedly sent another person, embodied in a material body, to the cross instead of himself, and he himself, as stated in one of the formulas of renunciation, looked at "his" execution from the side and laughed. On the contrary, it is repeatedly emphasized that Christ ascended to his heavenly homeland only after his crucifixion, death, and resurrection.

On page 12 of the Cephalaiah, there is some detail about how Jesus came into the world. There are several lacunae in this part of the manuscript, so the text reads ambiguously:

"Jesus Christ our Lord has come... in the spiritual in the body... [Kephalaia, 1940, 12.21 - 22].

It seems to refer to the physical incarnation of Jesus. But this is followed by well-preserved lines:

"...as I told you about him, I [told you about] him, that he came without a body. His apostles also preached about him that he took the form of a slave and the appearance of men" [ibid., 23-26].

However, the last phrase cannot be unambiguously interpreted as a statement of docetism - it is a paraphrase of a quote from the Epistle of the Ap. St. Paul's Letter to the Philippians:

4 Docetism - the idea that the body of Christ is nothing more than an appearance.

page 30
"...but he humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and in appearance becoming like a man " (Phil 2:7).

It should be noted that this quotation gives rise to a docetic interpretation. But, of course, it is not in itself evidence of docetism.

The phrase in Kefalaia about the coming of Jesus "without a body" would seem to clearly indicate docetism. But it is immediately preceded by the words about the bodily incarnation of Jesus. Perhaps the expression "came without a body" should be understood in such a way that, according to the Manichaean ideas, a heavenly power descended to earth - the periodically incarnating soul of the Apostle - and only after the arrival was it clothed in the earthly flesh of Jesus.

Then, on page 13 of the treatise, the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus follows, and it is said that "after three days He rose from the dead" [Kephalaia, 1940, 13.6], i.e., the bodily death and resurrection in the flesh are clearly implied.

In addition, the "historical Jesus" is not isolated in the Manichaean doctrine, but is included in the series of Apostles - the earthly founders of the true church. No docetic interpretations of the doctrine of periodically incarnating Apostles are attested in the sources. On the contrary, the Cephalaia speaks of the Apostles:

Because of this demise (and) death of souls, all the Apostles and fathers who came from the good, the prophets of truth, gave themselves up to every torment and bitter fate in order to be saved from the second death; none of the Apostles wants to receive their reward on earth, but they spend their whole lives in sorrow, accepting torment and crucifixion on the cross. your body to save your souls from that destruction [Kephalaia, 150.23-31].

Physical suffering (including execution), collectively referred to here as "crucifixion", are indispensable attributes of the earthly life of not only Jesus, but also of each of the Apostles, teachers of the true church.

Moreover, Mani includes himself in the series of Apostles, and he could not have declared his own body to be an appearance if he had wanted to.

One might conclude that the docetism of the Manichaeans is a secondary phenomenon, a later revision of the doctrine. But this is hindered by the important fact mentioned above: information about Manichaean docetism is already present in the earliest sources.

It is known that the first dogmatic differences in early Christianity concerned primarily Christology. Some, as Monophysites, claimed that the divine nature of Christ completely prevailed over the human one. Others, like the Arians, spoke of the creation and secondary nature of this Trinity hypostasis, or, like the Nestorians in later times, taught that Jesus was a man at birth, and divinity descended upon him afterwards. Perhaps the two versions of the Manichaean teaching about Jesus were an attempt by the Mani (or the first Manichaeans) to adapt their teaching to the different views on the nature of Christ that already existed in different Christian circles in the third century. Let us recall that docetic passages are found precisely in the epistles of Mani, written, apparently, after the compilation of the main canon.

There is another possibility. If for Christians Jesus should have occupied a special place even in the series of true teachers of faith, then for Zoroastrians and Buddhists this was not so: in their eyes, at least, Jesus is no more exceptional than Zarathustra or Buddha. It is possible that Mani deliberately allowed some variation in his teaching: in the writings intended for preaching among Christians, the disembodied nature of Jesus was postulated, while in those that were addressed to adherents of other religions or were of a general nature, this position was simply not put forward. It is no accident that the phrase quoted above in Kefalaia can be understood both as a statement of docetism and as a simple quotation from the New Testament.

I. Gardner disputes attempts to regionally divide aspects of Manichaean Christology [Gardner, 1988, p. 67]. As proof that the docetic views of

page 31
They also existed among the Eastern Manichaeans, and he cites the Middle Persian Manichaean text from Turfan M 28 (M 28 I R II 24 ff.). It says that Christians are blaspheming when they say that the son of Maryam (bar Maryam) is the son of the Lord

But this statement may not mean docetism at all, but only the radical separation of the heavenly and earthly Jesus characteristic of the Manichaeans.

As proof of the original docetism of the Manichaeans, Gardner also quotes from the Coptic psalm that Jesus "was not born in a defiled womb" [A Manichaean Psalm-Book, 1938, p. 52.23]; a similar statement is found further on [ibid., 175.16]. But even this does not clearly indicate docetism: it is likely that the canonical idea of the birth of Jesus from the virgin is simply developing here.

The following is also possible. It has already been said above that according to the Manichaean doctrine, the soul of every great teacher of the faith - the Apostle-is an emanation of the deity periodically descending to earth, and that at some point a heavenly "double" descends to him, a spirit that communicates to him the highest knowledge. Then the Apostle actually becomes the great founder of the true faith.

Augustine, in his dialogue Against Faustus, XXXII.7, puts in the mouth of Manichaeus an adoptionist Christological statement: Manichaeus Faustus admits that the son of David became the son of God, and compares this to the formation of the "new man" referred to in the New Testament. Therefore, the earthly Jesus is not born, but becomes the son of God.

The docetic passages in the Manichaean testimonies may have been a further development of this doctrine. Suppose Mani taught that at the crucifixion of the earthly Jesus, the soul of the Apostle and the deity-Double" out of necessity " departed from him and were not present at his carnal execution, i.e., the one who was crucified was no longer an Apostle. The opponents of the Manichaeans had reason to interpret this as pure docetism.

It should also be noted that the docetic explanation of the execution of Jesus, which is unique in relation to the rest of the great teachers of faith, may have the following justification. If we consider the main line of Apostles recognized by the Manichaeans as restorers of the original true religion, it turns out that Jesus was the only one of them who died a violent death. (Mani's execution is mentioned not in the Manichaean sources themselves, but only in heresiological writings.) The rest of the Apostles left the world as if voluntarily, after completing their earthly mission. The statement that Jesus also ascended before his execution does not in any way distinguish him from the line of Apostles, but, on the contrary, equates him with them.

list of literature

Irenaeus of Lyon. Exposing false-name knowledge. I, VII, 2. (Russian translation: St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Creations, Vol. II. Moscow, 1996).

Sidorov A. I. Manichaeism in the image of Augustine (De haeresibus) / / Bulletin of Ancient History. 1985. N2.

A Manichaean Psalm-Book / Ed. by C.R.C. Allberry // (Manichaean Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Collection). Stuttgart, 1938.

Aubineau M. Un traité inédit de christologie de Sévérien de Gabala. Centurionem et contra Manichaeos et Apollinaristas. Exploitation par Sévère d'Antioche (519) et le Synode du Latran (649). Genève, 1983.

Die koptisch-gnostische Schrift ohne Titel aus Codex II von Nag Hammadi im Koptischen Museum zu Alt-Kairo / Hrsg., übersetzt und bearbeitet von A.Böhlig & Pahor Labib. В., 1962.

Gardner I. Coptic Theological Papyri II / Ed., comment., trans. With an appendix: The docetic Jesus. Wien, 1988.

Kephalaia / Ed. H.-J. Polotsky & A. Bohlig. Stuttgart, 1940 (Russian translation: Kefalaia ("Chapters"). Coptic Manichaean Treatise / Translated from Coptic, research, commentary, glossary and edict by E. B. Smagina, Moscow, 1998.

Kephalaia. Zweite Hälfte / Alle restlichen Seiten. Bearbeitet von W.-P. Funk. Québec, 1999.

Patrologiae cursus completus / Ed. P. Migne. P. Series Graeca. Parisiis. Vol. 83, 378 In ff.

Patrologiae cursus completus / Ed. P. Migne. Series Latina. Parisiis. Vol. XLII.

page 32
Puech H.-Ch. Die Verwirklichung und die praktischen Mittel der Erlösung // Eranos-Jahrbuch. 1936. Zürich, 1937.

Puech H.-Ch. Extrait de la CXXIIIe homelie de Sévère d'Antioche. Réfutation de la doctrine manichéenne. (Cumont, Recherches sur le manichéisme). Bruxelles, 1908.

Ries J. Les rapports de la christologie manicheenne avec le Nouveau Testament dans l'eucologe copte de Narmouthis (Medînet Mâdi) // Université catholique de Louvain. Faculte de théologie, 1952 - 1953. Louvain-la-Neuve, 1953.

Ries J. Les titres néotestamentaires du Christ dans la liturgie gnostique de Medînet Mâdi // Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Suppl. ser. 3. Sheffield, 1980.

Rose E. Die manichäische Christologie. Wiesbaden, 1979.

Schenke G. Die Dreigestaltige Protennoia (Nag-Hammadi-Codex XIII) herausgegeben und kommentiert. Dr. Theol. Dissertation, Rostock, 1977.

Texte zum Manichäismus / Ed. A. Adam. V., 1954.

Wurst G. Die Bema-Psalmen // The Manichaean Coptic Papyri in the Chester Beatty Library. Psalm Book. Part II, Fasc. 1. (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum. Series Coptica. I). Turnhout, 1996.

Permanent link to this publication: