Talk:Mani (prophet)

Gospel of Mani
Should the Gospel of Mani be mentioned?

Not Gnostic
Maichaeanism is not a Gnostic religion. In it you were not saved by Gnosis but by ascetic practice and the ritual meal as one of the elect.

There is a theory that Manichaenism influenced the development of Gnostic belief, though. - cf IN SEARCH OF ZARATHUSTRA. ThePeg 2006

Corrections sent to OTRS.

 * The error is in this entry: ? Mani (prophet), a third-century Iranian prophet, the founder of the dualistic Manichaean religion, which borrowed eclecticallyfrom Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism
 * Mani was from Babel, not Iran; he was protected by the Sassanian emperor Shapur during Shapur's lifetime. Guided by an inner voice, Mani taught, not so much a new religion as divine generosity, reverence for the light in every soul, and respectful enquiry into wisdom in all religions, an enquiry to be led by an elect that lived as mendicants and studied texts and fine and applied arts,using their knowledge and skills for the benefit of all,with particular attention to those most in need.  Mani's influence spread widely, including among the worshippers of Ahura Mazda (or Zoroastrians) -- the official religion of the empire, of muhammad, and of Jesus of Nazareth.  Queen Zenobia of Palmyra was one of his adherents.
 * Manichee (Mani-Hayy) means" the living Mani"and was the name used by those faithful to him after his death, ordered by the usurping son of Shapur (heavily influenced by the head magus): see Les Jardins de Lumiere by Amin Maalouf, editions J-C Latte[accent grave]s1991 (The Gardens of Light in English translation by Dorothy Blair, Imprint 1999)
 * So then this entry seems incomplete: ? Mani (name), a Persian and Indian masculine personal name

From OTRS 2006081710008202. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-24t11:36z

Hermes and Plato?
The article on Mani says, 'He [Mani] later claimed to be the Paraclete promised in the New Testament, the Last Prophet or Seal of the Prophets, finalizing a succession of men guided by God, which included figures such as Seth, Noah, Abraham, Shem, Nikotheos, Enoch, Zoroaster, Hermes, Plato, Buddha and Jesus.' I am not sure what evidence there is that Mani considered Hermes or Plato prophets. I suggest that this claim be either supported with a reference or else deleted (I've raised the same issue on the Manichaeism talk page). Skoojal (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On "Manes"
The statement in the main text:
 * "his name to Mani (from "Manes" in Persian, meaning "discourse")."

does not make sense to me! I have consulted various dictionaries (Dehkhoda for modern Persian and various dictionaries on Avestan, Old Persian and Middle Persian) but have proved unable to find any word resembling "Manes". The word "Munes" (companion, friend) does exist in Modern Persian, as well as the verb "Mānestan" (to resemble). In English we have the Latin word "Manes" which according to OED means: "The deified souls of departed ancestors (as beneficent spirits; ...). Also, the spirit, `shade' of a departed person, considered as an object of homage or reverence, or as demanding to be propitiated by vengeance." In short, I am unable to connect "Mani" with the supposedly "Persian" word "Manes", meaning apparently "discourse". The closest that I have been able to get is to the Avestan word "ąnmā", meaning "spirit", "breath", and the Old Persian word "manā", meaning "I". --BF 01:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Mani in fiction
I'm not sure what the point is of having a 'Mani in fiction' section. Plenty of novels have been written about Jesus, but the article on Jesus has no section about fiction. Skoojal (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've contented myself with shortening this section. Skoojal (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper answer tot his discrepancy would be to give Jesus a fiction section. Thou this may have happened because Mani being mentioned less made mention all references to him easier, the main point of Wikipedia for me is to find such references.

Unprovable claims
The article says, 'Mani was an exceptionally gifted child and he inherited his father's mystic temperament.' I have added a citation needed tag for this, but really, I wonder whether it shouldn't just be removed altogether. Obviously there is no way of knowing what kind of temperament Mani may or may not have inherited. For that matter, how can one know for sure that he was an 'exceptionally gifted child'? Skoojal (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Legacy
Much of the material in the section I've retitled Legacy seems to over-lap with what can be found in the main article on Manichaeism, so I wonder whether it should be deleted. Skoojal (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I will probably delete nearly everything in this section in the near future, on the grounds of overlap with the Manichaeism article. Skoojal (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Expand article?
Recently, a 'please expand this article' notice was added to the article. I don't think that expanding the article is the first thing that needs to be done. On the contrary, I think it should be made even shorter, to cut back on repetition. After that, it needs to be properly sourced. Then bit by bit it can be expanded. Skoojal (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

mani iraqi not persian
mani born in iraq he is not persian ! and also Zartcht hes not persians !
 * unless Mani was able to be born after 1919 before travelling to the 3rd century, it would have been extremely difficult for him to be "Iraqi". --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The name of Iraq does not exist in ancient times, it is a country whose borders were determined by England Sassanid Iranshahr included Mesopotamia and many Iranian families lived in present-day Iraq. It is not difficult to understand this. Also, Mani is Iranian, we consider all Iranian tribes as Iranian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.107.210.19 (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Seal of Prophets
http://books.google.com/books?id=ThDJMif8T5sC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=seal+of+the+prophets+mani&source=web&ots=M1E84ReYFV&sig=4o9_dksWN7d9zRYayytfWhIk2tk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA237,M1

^^read footnote number 3 which shows that the terms "seal of prophets" which is clearly islamic in origin is not found in any Manicheanism document.

If anything the seal of prophets was a latter term borrowed from the islamic tradition and incorporated by Mani's followers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.191.48 (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If we take the term "seal of the prophets" to have a very specific meaning:, i.e., that Mani saw himself as the last in a series of prophets going back to Adam, then we can hardly quibble with its conclusion, as he certainly did see himself in this way. I presume that this is what Al-Bīrūnī would have meant by using this title for Mani. If anything, it would have been Muhammad that was inspired by Mani to make this very claim for himself, just as he also claimed to be the promised Paraclete. Algabal (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As the first user in this section stated the work states; "E. Sachau (ed.), The Chronology of Ancient Nations, (1879), repr. Frankfurt 1984. The clearly Islamic term 'seal of the prophets' is not found in Manichaean literature itself."

And as has been added correctly to this article the scholarly view is that the phrase "seal of the prophets" was not used by Mani in actual Manichaeism (at least as far as we know) for example scholar Peuch states; "Islamic authors ascribed to Mani the claim to be the Seal of the Prophets (Puech, 1949, p. 146 n. 248)." These are specifically referring to Al-Biruni of the 11th century CE and ibn al-Nadim of who died most sources say in either 995 CE or 998 CE.

With this in mind Professor Guy G. Stroumsa, a respected academic gives a very interesting critique in this scholarly article  Professor Stroumsa shows a lot of background info and argues as well that the term "seal of the prophets" is most likely simply ascribed to Mani by much later Islamic scholars (i.e. al-Biruni and ibn al-Nadim who in the 10th and 11th centuries CE were clearly under the influence of Islamic thinking with them being Muslims themselves, etc). But one thing that Stroumsa mentions that he says is a difficult to date (i.e. no one can know for sure if it is pre or post Islam) Manichaean text that exists only in a Uyghur language translation mentions something about "seals". I would add that a whole side issue comes up with the fact that this one Manichaean text (that is difficult to date and cannot be proven to be pre-Islam, i.e. one can simply say its post-Islam) that mentions something about a "seal" is in the Turkic Uyghur language (in this existing translation found in the Uyghur dominated area of China) and not in a Semitic language like Arabic (where Islamic terms obviously come from). Professor Stroumsa interestingly notes that if (just for the sake of argument) that Mani did declare himself as the "seal of the prophets" the context from this one hard to date Uyghur translation text makes it clear Mani was not referring to himself as supposedly being the "seal" of previous prophets in fact what Mani would be doing would've been calling his chief followers known as his priests or in Latin the "Electi" (those Mani taught and who went out and preached for his religion for him) his "prophets" and he was their "seal" (so it would be Mani referring to his contemporary followers and not past Prophets which makes it clearly different form Islamic tradition no matter what). But again that is just for the sake of argument and as stated above from a scholarly source: "The clearly Islamic term 'seal of the prophets' is not found in Manichaean literature itself."Historylover4 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Mani, Mani, Mani
This article needs to be cleaned up. It seems every sentence start with "Mani." It would flow better if the author used a pronoun once in a while. That and short, choppy sentences detract from the main point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.181.49 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you say Mani kids?
How to pronounce his name? Does it sound like 'money'? please, somebody, add the pronounciation. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.149.33 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

MAH-nee? --dab (𒁳) 11:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mani and Manicheanism are Arabians Semites not Persians.
Since Mani originated in Iraq from a semitic/arab family and had an arabian/semitic mother tongue and his sacred book was written in arabian aramaic and he had an arabian semitic name (mani=who, him, progeniture)in Arabian Semitic Arabic.

So please correct this article.

Thanks for your attention

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's just say we don't have a source for any of this. Our source says that Mani was born near Seleucia-Ctesiphon in the Parthian Babylonia province and that his mother was allegedly of Arsacid descent. What Mani almost certainly was not was an Arab, but it is anyone's guess if his father was "Parthian" or "Assyrian". Since his mother was of Parthian nobility, it would seem reasonable that his father was also of Parthian origin, but this is conjecture. --dab (𒁳) 13:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * + According to Fehrest Mani was Arsacid from both sides (father and mother). I will add this later. Xashaiar (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * +the Cambridge History of Iran vol. 3 part 1 states (page 97) "Mani claimed to be a descendent of a Parthian princely family... " and (page 500) "Mani, a Parthian on his mother side". and here it is stated that (based on Fehrest) Mani's father was Iranian too. Xashaiar (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * + I was going to add these sources but I found the sentence: Such medieval accounts as were known, are either legendary or hagiographical, such as the account in Fihrist by Ibn al-Nadim, purportedly by al-Biruni, or anti-Manichaean polemics, such as the 4th century Acta Archelai. This is unsourced and looks a bit pushing pov. I also have a source that seems to contradicts this: Generally one can say that Ebn al-Nadīm is most reliable and exhaustive in his account of the Manichean teachings. (from EIr. article] by W. Sundermann on "Representation of Manicheism in al-Fehrest"). I think I will edit according to this source. Xashaiar (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We can by all means cite al-Nadim's claim that Mani was of Parthian descent from both sides. Nothing wrong with that. But we need to note that al-Nadim is just a medieval source. We can also note the scholarly opinion that al-Nadim is "reliable", for a medieval source, but of course his reliability does not compare to that of contemporary evidence. --dab (𒁳) 09:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Descendance does not mean anything, he was Semite since he was Semitic by mother tongue ; Persian is the one who is Persian by mother tongue other criteria are confusing and racist and anyway there was no Persian by those times but various Iranic speaking folks and if they are called Persian then we can also call Arameans, Akkadians and Assyrians as Arabs. Could we say that imam abu hanifa, who has Arabic as his mother tongue, is Iranic=>of course not. And most likely he was to a great part of local middle eastern mesopotamian extraction since Iranian genetic input into middle east was very low and consisted in a classical process of language shift then much of this Iranian element succumbed after Turk and Mongol raids.

Humanbyrace (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "PERSIAN" was simply a "catch all" used to describe someone living within the Persian Empire. Mani seems to have spoken Neo Aramaic and been born and raised in Mesopotamia, his father is described as Assyrian, his mother Persian.....He was NOT born in Persia...a more accurate description would be Assyrian-Persian or Mesopotamian. He does not seem to be wholly ethnically Persian, if he was, he would have spoken and written in Persian, not Aramaic/Syriac and his father would not have been part of an Assyrian sect but would have been a Zoroastrian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are three quotes from three well-known scholars of Manichaeism (Sundermann writing just two years ago), showing clearly that Mani clearly can be thought of as having Babylonian (i.e. Persian province of Asuristan) background. Whoever keeps changing this to say he was solely Persian, is clearly not correct, and the article needs to be changed to say so:
 * Sundermann, Werner, "Mani, the founder of the religion of Manicheism in the 3rd century CE", Encyclopaeia Iranica, 2009. Sundermann summarizes the available sources thus: "According to the Fehrest, Mani was of Arsacid stock on both his father’s and his mother’s sides, at least if the readings al-ḥaskāniya (Mani’s father) and al-asʿāniya (Mani’s mother) are corrected to al-aškāniya and al-ašḡāniya (ed. Flügel, 1862, p. 49, ll. 2 and 3) respectively. The forefathers of Mani’s father are said to have been from Hamadan and so perhaps of Iranian origin (ed. Flügel, 1862, p. 49, 5-6). The Chinese Compendium, which makes the father a local king, maintains that his mother was from the house Jinsajian, explained by Henning as the Armenian Arsacid family of Kamsarakan (Henning, 1943, p. 52, n. 4 = 1977, II, p. 115). Is that fact, or fiction, or both? The historicity of this tradition is assumed by most, but the possibility that Mani’s noble Arsacid background is legendary cannot be ruled out (cf. Scheftelowitz, 1933, pp. 403-4). In any case, it is characteristic that Mani took pride in his origin from time-honored Babel, but never claimed affiliation to the Iranian upper class."


 * Henning, W.B., The Book of Giants, BSOAS,Vol. XI, Part 1, 1943, pp. 52-74: "It is noteworthy that Mani, who was brought up and spent most of his life in a province of the Persian empire, and whose mother belonged to a famous Parthian family, did not make any use of the Iranian mythological tradition. There can no longer be any doubt that the Iranian names of Sām, Narīmān, etc., that appear in the Persian and Sogdian versions of the Book of the Giants, did not figure in the original edition, written by Mani in the Syriac language."


 * (from Al-Briruni's Chronology, quoted in Hans Jonas, "The Gnostic Religion", 1958) "From aeon to aeon the apostles of God did not cease to bring here the Wisdom and the Works. Thus in one age their coming was into the countries of India through the apostle that was the Buddha; in another age, into the land of Persia through Zoroaster; in another, into the land of the West through Jesus. After that, in this last age, this revelation came down and this prophethood arrived through myself, Mani, the apostle of the true God, into the land of Babel (Babylon - then a province of the Persian Empire)."Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your effort but you are confusing the matters. He was without doubt Iranian in the sense of Iranic people. He was a native of Mesopotamia this is also clear in the sense of residence. You are making "strange" original research in bringing the second source (Henning) and telling us that the quote shows a dual Babylonian/Persian origin out of Mani! Now 1. Please do not confuse Persian with Iranian (which you did) 2. Please do not make wp:synth (which you did) as the source does not say "he was of Asyrian origin". What you want to say is: He was born, raised in ancient Iraq? I am not disputing it. Are you saying his parents were not of Iranian Arsacid noble family? I dispute that per all sources by Encyclopaedia Iranica (which yourself mentioned), The Cambridge History of Iran (which is cited in my previous comment here in this talk page), and Boyce's book (which is in the footnote of this article). To solve the problem without edit warring please tell us what you want to write? Thanks. Xashaiar (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's nice you appreciate that, but if you read the quote from Encyclopedia Iranica, it is saying that Mani was of Babylonian origin, probably (including parents), and that the Iranian origin may have been a later, added legend.Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is that quote again, do you see the bold? This is the source you yourself were using:
 * Sundermann, Werner, "Mani, the founder of the religion of Manicheism in the 3rd century CE", Encyclopaeia Iranica, 2009. Sundermann summarizes the available sources thus: "According to the Fehrest, Mani was of Arsacid stock on both his father’s and his mother’s sides, at least if the readings al-ḥaskāniya (Mani’s father) and al-asʿāniya (Mani’s mother) are corrected to al-aškāniya and al-ašḡāniya (ed. Flügel, 1862, p. 49, ll. 2 and 3) respectively. The forefathers of Mani’s father are said to have been from Hamadan and so perhaps of Iranian origin (ed. Flügel, 1862, p. 49, 5-6). The Chinese Compendium, which makes the father a local king, maintains that his mother was from the house Jinsajian, explained by Henning as the Armenian Arsacid family of Kamsarakan (Henning, 1943, p. 52, n. 4 = 1977, II, p. 115). 'Is that fact, or fiction, or both?' The historicity of this tradition is assumed by most, but the possibility that Mani’s noble Arsacid background is legendary cannot be ruled out (cf. Scheftelowitz, 1933, pp. 403-4). In any case, it is characteristic that Mani took pride in his origin from time-honored Babel, but never claimed affiliation to the Iranian upper class."
 * The quote from boyce He was Iranian, of noble Parthian blood. and also Henning  who was brought up ... in ...  the Persian empire, and whose mother belonged to a famous Parthian family are clearly saying "he was Iranic". Hening is saying "he was not proud of being Iranian". Have I made my point? Well we dont say he was proud of his Iranian origin. The quote from Iranica does not state he was Babylonian. It says "he did not say I am from Iranian upper class" which is not disputed. You make original research in understanding the source and using it in your favor! old sources also say he was arsacid. In any case we should follow the exact meaning of the sources we use and do not do OR. Xashaiar (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay I did some google books search: Mani "Assyrian Prophet" gives zero hits. Mani "Iranian Prophet" and Mani "Persian Prophet" gives hundreds of hits. Also traditional sources discuss both his father and mother as being Iranian (Arsacid/Parthian). Cambridge History of Iran states: "Mani, a Parthian of noble birth, was born under the rule of the last of the ...". Do a google books search "Mani" "Patek".. Patek in the classical sources is his father and a Parthian. "Mani was born to a family distantly related to the Parthian Arsacid royal lineage. ". Overall, the findings of one scholar is important, but even he admits: "The historicity of this tradition is assumed by most, but the possibility that Mani’s noble Arsacid background is legendary cannot be ruled out (cf. Scheftelowitz, 1933, pp. 403-4". Of course anything is possible, but if most sources agree he is Parthian, then that is good enough for Wikipedia.  I think the general google books search clearly shows Mani being stated as a Parthian from both his mother and his father's side.   At least the article should mention Patek, the Parthian father of Mani.  Also taking possible pride in Babylon cannot be used for WP:synthesis since Babylon itself had a large Iranian population (still modern Iraq is 20%+ Kurd who speak languages related to Parthian) and at one time, had a large Persian speaking population (names of Baghdad, Anbar, Fellujah.. are all Persian). Large number of Persians existed at Iraq at one time, and even up to the 20th century .  As a 3rd opinion, I believe the fact that Mani's Ardascid background (his father too as shown in google books) is accepted by most sources, is sufficient for Wikipedia and should be given primacy (and other opinions should be attributed to the authors who disagree, but even these authors don't say he is not Iranian they just say he might not be of Parthian descent).  I did not see where Iranica states he was of "Babylonian origin" but Babylon at that time was a geography, as there was no ethnic group called "Babylonian" during the Sassanid era.  Either way, most sources agree he was Parthian according to that article and there might not be a contradiction, sine he was a Parthian from Babylon (hence a Babylonian too). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you do a google book search on this? "mani maryam armenian". Anyone scholar who is claiming that Mani's mother Maryam (= both Aramaic and Armenian for the mother of Jesus), was from the house of Arsacids, is referring to the Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia. (More specifically the "Armenian Arsacid family of Kamsarakan") So please, would you update the article to reflect that his mother was Armenian? That would mean that the article stating Mani is "of Iranian origin" would be incorrect, since his mother was Armenian.  While you are at it, please mention that scholars today always state the possibility that his royal Arsacid heritage may have been a legend?Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On your points: 1) Maryam is also Persian/Parthian for Mary. 2) As per Arsacid, Arsacid means Parthian. Armenian here is geography (Armenia) where the Parthains (Arsacids) ruled from. So when they say: "Armenian Arsacid family" it is still "Arsacid" (Iranian) origin who ruled Armenia. Just like the Arsacid dynasty of Caucasian Albania (in the Caucasus not to be confused with the country) which is sometimes called "Albanian Arsacid". Check the article you wiki-linked: "Kamsarakan (Armenian: Կամսարական) was an Armenian noble family that was an offshoot of the Karen-Pahlav Clan, one of the seven great houses of Parthia of Persian Arsacid origin." Here "Armenian noble family" does not mean ethnic Armenian rather geographically they were also in Armenia as well. Parthians were a big Iranian tribe who ruled the area during the Parthian empire as well in the Sassanid empire (minor Parthian Kingdom). Parthian kingdoms also ruled the Caucasus. "the homeland of Mani's Parthian ancestors". See Parthians and Parthian language. Sundermann is not stating that the Iranian (Parthian) is legendary, he is just casting doubt about the class of the origin. Here is another source: Mani, who was of Parthian origin. The Parthian origin of Mani is basically in all classical sources (both mother and father's side). Even if it is not of noble origin, here is source stating explicitly: "We are now certain that Mani was of Iranian stock on both his father's and his mother's side " (Alessandro Bausani, "Religion in Iran: from Zoroaster to Baha'ullah", Bibliotheca Persica Press, 2000)(pg 80). I do not see Sunderman disclaiming Iranian origin for Mani, he is just unsure about the "noble" part. I personally do not see any alternative to Iranian in google books. For example "Assyrian" and "Mani" gives zero hits. And he was not Armenian (ethnicity) but possibly from the Arsacid noble lineage of Armenia which is still Iranian (Parthian). As per Babylonian, I mentioned babylonian was not an ethnicity in the 3rd century A.D., but rather a geographical location which many different elements. Even today, Kurds (Iranian people) are 20% of Iraq. Thanks--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's correct how you and some other editors brush off the significance of 3rd century Babel (Babylonia) as an Aramaic-speaking cultural entity. If you look at the phenomenon of incantation bowls from that time period, they were written in 3 forms of Aramaic - Mandaic, Syriac, and Jewish Aramaic.  Only very few were written in Persian.  Mani, writing in Syriac, spoke of himself being in Babel (with pride, as Sundermann states). Mandaeans considered themselves from Babel.  The Babylonian Jews that wrote the Babylonian Talmud (in Aramaic), considered themselves in Babel.  These three peoples considered Babel as the source for their Aramaic, ethnic identity. And they were all at roughly the same time as Mani. Persians certainly didn't see Babel that way.Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The situation is easy: Boyce, Henning, .. all are top scholars of Manichaeism and almost all other sources that yould be considered reliable about this topic state that Mani was Arsacid Iranic. (I can bring any number of academic sources you need). Therefore by wikipedia has the same pov as what most academic sources of the topic state Mani is Iranian. You misunderstand the article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica, because it just sate he was proud of his original homeland of Babylon (because he was born there to Iranic parents). It does not state anything else. Please read carefully wp:synth. Xashaiar (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are commiting WP:syntehsis. But to respond: Babylon or Iraq was actually the later Sassanid capital and it had a large Iranian-speaking population. The name Baghdad or Anbar or Fellujah or Baquba are testament to that fact of the once large Persian prescence (which like the Aramaic speakers, became gradually Arabicized). Plus Mani was multi-lingual and also spoke Middle Persian (hence his work Shaburehgan). According to Biruni also: "Babil was the heart of Iranshahr" during the Sassanid era, Iranshahr being an alternative name for Iran during the Sassanid era. Also Aramaic was a major language of all of the Sassanid empire, and the Middle Persian script is based on Aramaic. Babylon too had a large Iranian-speaking prescence. Thus Aramaic speakers exerted a cultural force on Iranian elements for sure and we can state there was a synthesis of the two cultures in Iraq. However, in terms of Mani's lineage, the Parthian origin (wether royal or not) is accepted by the major sources nd as I said, Babylon was not mono-ethnic. There elments of Zoroastrianism in Manicheism as well, for example evil appears as a principle preceding and transcending the everyday earthly existence. Where-as say in Christianity, the viewpoint on evil is different..Also reincarnation seems to have been taken from Bhuddism (Indo-Iranian religion). So Manicheism itself seems to be a synthesis of Indo-Iranian and Semitic religions. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC) BTW Pātik (his fathername) is also a Parthian name. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Should also add that Babylon was under the control of Achaemenids, Parthians and Sassanids (three Iranian dynasties with only small break due to Alexander). Note Ctesiphon was the capital of both Parthians(Arsacids) and Sassanids. So I think Aramaic/Iranian cultures mixed in the area and hence you have Manicheism which is also a mixture of Indo-iranian and Semitic thoughts. Also the Aramaic influence on Mani comes through the Christian sect he was a member of, since Christianity came to Persia through the medium of Aramaic. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Terrible article, rewrite!
Needs to be completely re-written from the ground up with proper sources, spelling, grammar, historical accuracy, etc. This is honestly the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I began to make edits myself but realized the futility very quickly. Right around the un-sourced sections regarding Mani's 3 facets of Jesus, the article turns to shit. Almost that entire section is just someone wildly speculating then tacking on a source link from a much earlier edit to lend credence. This article was - sadly, I must add - my introduction to Mani. So I wouldn't be the best person to undertake a re-writing of the article. Yet if an authority on Mani could do so, it would greatly aid this article. I'd be happy to help re-vise/re-format, if English is not the primary language of the editor(s).
 * I don't know if you'll visit this page back someday. You should know, I think you're right Mr. IP. We can start with deleting sentences linked to no source. I've already deleted some. --SeyitCmesaj 19:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

His ethnicity: Which Iranian group?
No source for his "specific" ethnicity? Which Iranian ethnicity? Was he Parthian or Persian? --Zyma (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Death
The following text from the article is not at all supported by the citation given for it. The text was removed by an IP-user and restored by @JudeccaXIII, presumably under the assumption that it was valid. Unless a source is found that supports the text, it should be removed again. Cl ea n Co py talk 11:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Mani's followers depicted Mani's death as a crucifixion in a conscious analogy to the death of Christ; Al-Biruni says that Bahram ordered the execution of Mani. He was flayed alive and his skin stuffed with straw, was nailed to a cross and suspended over the main gate of the great city of Jundishapur as a terrifying spectacle for those who followed his teachings. His corpse was decapitated and the head placed on a spike. Bahram also ordered the killing of many Manicheans.


 * I changed the passage to the following: Mani's followers depicted Mani's death as a crucifixion in a conscious analogy to the crucifixion of Jesus; al-Biruni says that Bahram ordered the execution of Mani. There is a story which claims that he was flayed, and his corpse suspended over the main gate of the great city of Gundeshapur; however, there is no historical basis for this account. 
 * this was referenced on Manichaeism, which refuted its historicity. based on that, and its sensational nature, my guess is that it's anti-Manichaean propaganda from antiquity. Xcalibur (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * just added a bit more. apparently, the line: His corpse was decapitated and the head placed on a spike. may be the original basis of the embellished story, according to encyclopedia iranica. Xcalibur (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Theodore bar Konai, Book of the Scholia
The evidence from this source on Manichaeism is not incorporated into the discussions presented in the article. It is probably more important than the Medieval Muslim sources, all of which are of a later date, and were written by Arabic speakers who almost certainly had no access to the Syriac sources. This is of great importance, because Mani wrote in Syriac.

The dating of the Book of the Scholia is uncertain, but was composed either in the late 8th or in the 9th century. Book Eleven contains a short biography of Mani as well as a synopsis of Manichaean doctrine, written from a sharply critical point of view, but nevertheless corroborating much of the information found in other sources, including the Cologne Mani Codex. Of importance is that Theodore quotes, or claims to quote, an original text by Mani. Of interest is that the names for the divine beings in Theodore's quoted source are all Aramaic, and have no relation with Persian or Iranian Zoroastrianism. Since Mani composed six of his seven works in Syriac, a major dialect of Aramaic, one can safely conclude that this lengthy quotation preserved in the Book of the Scholia is authentic, or nearly so.

The critical edition of the Liber Scholion, made by Addai Scher and published in is available online; the relevant sections begin here: https://archive.org/stream/liberscholiorumt00theo#page/311/mode/2up. A bibliography of the editions of other recensions may be found here: http://roger-pearse.com/wiki/index.php?title=Theodore_bar_Koni

Am English translation of the relevant sections on Mani may be found in: A.V.W. Jackson, Researches in Manichaeism, New York, 1932, pp. 222–54. There is a French translation of Addai Scher's edition: Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium vol. 448, Peeters, 1983.

There is to date no English translation of the entire Book of the Scholia.

Thank you for reading! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.75.209 (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Mother - Armenian origin
His mother (Mariam) was of Armenian descent, from the Armenian Arsacid family of Kamsarakan. Kamsarakan (Armenian: Կամսարական) was an Armenian noble family that began as an offshoot of the Karen-Pahlav Clan, a Hellenistic-Era Armenian house, descended by the fusion of an Arsacid branch with the Karen, one of the seven great houses of Parthia. Leo Freeman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A proper image of Mani
I replaced the previous image of Mani with one depicting the prophet in a Manichaean work of art, since the pervious one appears to be an original drawing posted by a user in 2007, but that drawing doesn't seem to have any historical basis. I don't think this is a perfect solution, and if anyone can find a more accurate depiction of Mani please let me know or go ahead and replace the image I just used. Bagabondo (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The new image looks much better than the previous one. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)