Talk:Manichaeism/Archive 2

Mani of Babylonian Origin
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) 00:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a copy from my reply to your comment in talk page of Mani...I appreciate your effort but you are confusing the matters. He was without doubt Iranian in the sense of Iranian people. He was a native of Mesopotamia this is also clear in the sense of residency. 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 the talk page of Mani), 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)


 * Did you read the Sundermann quote closely? He is saying that he is casting doubt on the Persian origin, and giving credence to the Babylonian origin:
 * 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 ****i.e. Iranian origin is in doubt**** 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. ****i.e. Mani always said he was proud he was from Babylon, and never mentioned any Iranian origins****"Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem completely lost in understanding the sources: Boyce says " He was Iranian by blood! (that is parents) ", Iranica says "mani did not say I am proud of being Iranian upper class", henning says Mani " whose mother belonged to a famous Parthian family...did not make any use of the Iranian mythological tradition " so what??? They all say He was Iranic but did not make any noise about that. Also please use either this talk page or the talk page of Mani. Also please read wp:or and wp:synth. Xashaiar (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sundermann is saying the obvious, that his mother being Parthian may be a later legend (yes, that means that what Henning/Boyce are mentioning may be only conjecture), that Mani never mentioned (implying it might not be true). Even if it was true, his father was in the Jewish-Christian Babylonian Elchasaite sect, giving every reason to believe that he was from Babylonian (Assyrian-Assuristan, Aramaic, non-Persian, whatever you want to call it) origins. There is no reason to leave out mention of the Babylonian origins, as you keep insisting on doing.Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not know why I am discussing with you: you do not even understand difference of Iranian and Persian. Anyways: 1. you are violating wp:3rr 2. you are violating wp:synth. 3. If you want here is my solution: we make a section on family background and quote completely, directly, and without commentariest the quotes from Boyce, Nenning, Iranica agree? Xashaiar (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. Here is my solution - we use Sundermann, the most recent most respected scholar of Manichaeism, and the statement he made in Iranica, which says that Mani's Parthian mother origins may be a legend (i.e. not true), and that the remaining evidence says Mani was of Babylonian (non-Iranian) origin.  Or, to include both views, mention both, just like I already did in the article, so there is no need to change my edits. Agreed?Jimhoward72 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you stop reverting? If yes here is what we do: we quote the primary sources, through secondary ones, that he is in classical sources considered of Iranic origin. Then we say what the author of Iranica's article, boyce, .. say. If you give time to me I will write my version and we can discuss the matter. I can not contribute when you are "reverting 10 times". Xashaiar (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As xashaiar said you are doing original research. The sources may give a probability that he was not Iranian. But majority of academic sources agree that Mani was from parthian background. --Wayiran (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate - the sources say only that his mother was from Parthian background, and according to recent scholarship, that is possible legend, not fact. It's interesting that your only interest in editing this article is to insist Mani was Parthian, nothing more, and no other contributions to the actual substance of the article itself. That is tantamount to vandalism.Jimhoward72 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I started to edit the article and started from first section and after 1 minute you started the reverts. That is how you welcome other editors? Also have in mind that wikipedia has this POV: what majority of academic sources say is the pov wikipedia articles have. No comment is needed. And most sources say Mani was Iranic Arsacid. And yes he was from Mesopotamia. But you are misunderstanding this. One can be of Chinese parents but very well Indian. Boyce is top scholar, the Cambridge history of Iran is also very reputable and E Iranica is also very specialized. We can not write according to how we understand the sources (wp:synth). Xashaiar (talk) 02:04, 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.  So Sundermann is not saying anything about non-Iranian origin, rather he is suggesting that it is possible (not ) Mani might not have been from the high class Iranians (does not exclude others). 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)

Structure
Editors I've altered the way the headings were set to reduce the number of main sections to 4: And moved some chunks of primary sources to primary sources. I hope this makes the article easier to navigate. There appears to be some duplication/disorder in 4.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. History
 * 2. Beliefs
 * 3. Practices
 * 4. Primary sources

Estimate of survival rate of Mani's writings
I have looked around the article for awhile, and I am having trouble determining what fraction of texts by Mani have survived as translations. I think that just about any critical reader would want to know that right away. Can somebody add near the top of the article some range of estimates of that? If available, it should also include some general indication of the fidelity of the translations. Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The problem is that no complete "book" of Mani's 7 books has survived. In many cases, even though we may have long quotes or numerous fragmentary pages, they are missing the "book" title, so we don't know to which work they belong.  Two prominent exceptions are the fragments of "The Book of Giants", which can be identified because it has material in it from "The Book of Enoch", on which it was based, and the "Shaburagan", of which numerous pages have been identified.  But no book at all of Mani has survived in complete form, from beginning to end, with title attached.Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It seems you have just written something worthwhile on the topic.  How about converting it into text for the article, as a start that might lead to say a few hundred words on the topic.  It seems like a fundamental issue in any attempts to define Manichaeism itself.CountMacula (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

apostle Psattiq
The article states "It reached Rome through the apostle Psattiq by AD 280".

However, if you click Psattiq you're redirected to Mani the Prophet. Examining the redirect page's history reveals it was a page for Mani's father.

This doesn't make sense. How can Psattiq the apostle be Mani's father? Not only must the years be wrong, the (little) info there is on him doesn't mention ever traveling that far west (as Rome).

I think the names have been mixed up. I'm removing the link (that leads back to Mani anyway). 90.229.34.175 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The simplest answer for me would be to assume that Psattiq the apostle and Mani's father Pātik are different individuals, and that the link was either a mistake, or that material about Psattiq was in the Mani article but later removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird Chronology
The first sentence of the little history blurb at the beginning says Manichaeism thrived from the third to the seventh century. The very next sentence says it faded out in China in the 14th century. That's a 7-century jump, and no rationale is apparent for why only China is mentioned. GeneCallahan (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's explained throughout the article, but basically what happened is that it spread widely for those first few centuries, from the Middle East all the way to Egypt and China. While it died out earlier in the West, it survived for longer in the East, and its last place of survival was China, where it finally faded. In order to explain all that at the beginning, you would have to add a number of sentences, instead of just a one-sentence summary.Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to re-word the sentence so it makes more sense.Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So when DID it finally go extinct?Ericl (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Great King of Honor
The translated phrase "Great King of Honor" might be an enfeeblement of the original.

The roots and construction of "malka raba de-ikara" could be taken to mean "ultimate magnificent king". "Raba", specifically, comes from a root meaning "many", suggesting a ramification of the status of the noun being described. When admiration of a king is intensified in English, it may be done using "magnificent".

To be clear about the internal construction, "malka" corresponds to "King", "raba" corresponds to "Great", and "de-ikara" is a modifier of "malka raba", which in the accepted translation corresponds to "of honor".

To justify changing the translation of "de-ikara", note first that "honored great king" sounds anticlimactic. The problem may be that "honored" is not a strong enough translation for "de-ikara". Indeed, "ikar" is used elsewhere in Semitic lore (consider its use in the watchword "the whole world is a narrow bridge ..." by Nachman of Bratzlav) to mean "the most important thing".

To justify re-organizing the translated phrase, note that the translation "great" for "raba" creates formation problems. "Ultimate great king" has a semantic defect, which is that "great" is already a superlative, so "ultimate" seems inappropriate as a further modifier. Using "magnificent" for "raba" avoids this defect.

I say this as an amateur student of old Semitic texts, who has contemplated how to cultivate inspiration, and how those texts go about doing that. I don't know Syriac specifically, so I can't be sure of my interpretation. Bruce Esrig (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the Aramaic word "ikara" is related to the Hebrew word "yakar", meaning costly, precious, or, in Aramaic, "honorable". It's the same idea as the "King of Glory" in the Hebrew bible. Melekh ha-Kavod (King of Honor, or Glory, in Hebrew) becomes "Malka de-Ikara" in Aramaic. The "ikar" of Rabbi Nachman is a completely different root, with the letter "ayn" in it. Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070807002634/http://www.tanghistory.net:80/data/articles/d02/618.html to http://www.tanghistory.net/data/articles/d02/618.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111229142148/https://pluto.huji.ac.il/~stroumsa/Seal.pdf to http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~stroumsa/Seal.pdf
 * Added tag to http://mehmetolmez.org/Yuklemeler_Downloads/Eski
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322023046/http://www.essenes.net/pdf/Mani%27s%20Sabuhragan.pdf to http://www.essenes.net/pdf/Mani%27s%20Sabuhragan.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324163131/http://www.essenes.net/pdf/Mani%20SabuhraganII%20.pdf to http://www.essenes.net/pdf/Mani%20SabuhraganII%20.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Acta Archelai – link broken Parzivalamfortas 06:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_n2_v16/ai_16502939/pg_5/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223141441/http://www4.nau.edu/manichaean/acta.htm to http://www4.nau.edu/manichaean/acta.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manichaeism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808000234/http://www.mq.edu.au/research/centres_and_groups/ancient_cultures_research_centre/research/cultural_ex_silkroad/zayton to http://www.mq.edu.au/research/centres_and_groups/ancient_cultures_research_centre/research/cultural_ex_silkroad/zayton/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Luther
The removed ref (which definitely is a blog by the way) is being used to discuss the work of Theobald Beer on Luther. If this guy is, in fact, an expert on Luther, I'd suggest we can find a stronger ref than some random anonymous blog entry. Just saying. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - this appears to be the work of one person, not corroborated by other scholars - it doesn't appear that any of Theobald Beer's books have been translated into English, so difficult to check sources - Epinoia (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically German sources can be RSes on English Wikipedia if they otherwise meet notability standards but German is not a language I speak so I can't help with that. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Before I removed this part, I checked the arguments to calculate wether or not, this claim makes sense. But there was something like "for Gnostics Satan and God tried to capture humans", was simply inappropriate. Only the Cathars and the Bogomiles called the demiurge "Satan" or "Lucifer". Further, they don't "fight". It is only in Manichaeism there good and evil "battle" and even this is no real battle, the "good God" simpley tries to gather his own light particles. Next, I don't see the point how Luther agreed with "Gnostic demonology". For Gnostics, the planet were commonly assumed as demonic. For Manichaens, the "Book of Giants" was accepted, but neither by Luther nor by Catholicism. But Catholicism also had influenced from the Manichaean dualistic worldview (evil against good) since Augustine, whose writings set the base for Catholic Demonology until the Medieval Age and he actually was Manichaen, but differs from Manicaeism in two points: 1) these evil powers are not fallen angels 2) both good and evil came from God. For Mani, good and evil are distinct. And this (while one could still debate against the first point) shows that it is very very unlikely to be Manichaen, because it is a basic doctrine for Manichaeism, that good and evil are absolute opposites. There were even disputes between Manichaens and Muslims, because of that (Muslims hold that their God is (like the Gnostic Monad) incomparable and entirely good, but opposed by Manichaeans, who asserted that one God can not create both good and evil. Same for Manichaenas and Augustine: The dispute was about wether or not, good and evil derive from two or just one "deity". Thus even if Luther had access to Manichaen writings (if he had, I guess there would be some sort of references or at least, he would had include some Manichaens writings such as "the Book of giants" in his reformed Canon, there would be a reference to any of Manis canonical scriptures. Or he had to reconcile the docetic Jesus of Manichaeans with the "Trinity Jesus" of Western Christianity) he would have opposed them. For that, it seems to be very unlikely that this possible little influence really exists, it would need more than just a claim, styled like a frindge theory, with vague claims (such as "Satan in Gnosticism" (which gnosticism? Sethianism, Valentinism, Mandaeanism?; What is ment by "Satan"? Jahwe? "Samael"? "Ialdabaoth" "Prince of Darkness"?) and no further support. If this article is supposed to say, that Manichaeism exist because of its influences on Catharism, and Cathar oral traditions affected the Christian belief in the Middle Ages and than Luther may took up one certain idea, the essence of Manichaeism vanishes, since the main-ideas of Manichaeism (stated above) are not apearent. Further I do not know that Luther supported Manichaen ethics such as "Vegetarism" or "Anti-natalism" or "all matter is evil" (that is basic for any Gnostic system). Thus, even if this is made by one scholar, I would appreciate a reconciling explanation how the scholar sees a connection between them, (since even the arguements are either vague or wrong brought in the source and speaks against every other source in the Gnostic-Wiki arcitles).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - the important thing is not our modern knowledge of Manichaeism, but how Luther understood it and what sources were available to him at the time - in "Commentary on Genesis," Luther condemns Manichaens, along with Pelagians and Donatists as, "disturbers of the churches." The online sources for Theobald Beer's work are all Catholic sites seeking to malign Luther, so it is worth pointing out that Theobald Beer was a Catholic priest. The only source I have found for Melancthon saying that Luther suffered from "Manichean delirium" is a book called "Indulgences: Luther, Catholicism, and the Imputation of Merit" by Mary C Moorman, and she quotes Beers as a source - the book "argues that Luther's sola fide theology merely absolutized the very logic of indulgences which he sought to overthrow". The mission of the publisher, Emmaus Academic, is to to "participate in the renewal of Catholic theology", so hardly a unbiased source. If there are other sources available I would like to know about them - Epinoia (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is neutral but our sources aren't required to be. If Beer is a reliable source on Luther in relation to Manichaeism, we can include Beer's comments in the article regardless of whether Beer has a specific POV. However, Beer's writing would constitute a primary source, and should be used with caution for that reason. I would concur that a secondary source describing what Beer thought about Luther and Manichaeism would be an ideal solution if it's decided this information is WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Addendum. But that secondary source must be a reliable one, which an anonymous blog is not. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now there Epioia mentions it. "Manichaen" was also used as a derogatory term by Christians. If there is a reliable and significant idea, that Luther was blamed for being Manichaean, we could (if we have further stuff for it) create a section about "accused of being Manichaean" or something of the like. But I think, we should only do it, if we have further evidence and more notable sources for that.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Manichæism is a religion
Theologically, Manichaeism is a dualistic religion that postulated an ongoing struggle between the forces of good and evil in the universe. It is also an eclectic religion that attempted to provide a synthesis of previous religious teachings. Its founder, Mani, claimed to be the final prophet for all religions. Nittin Das (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think that Manicaheism could be handles as a religion of itself. Many sources, which implie Manichaeism, do refer to it as its own separate religion, too. But nevertheless, we should find a source, which explicitdly calls manichaeism a religion on its own.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Manichaeism is described as a religious movement because it spread so far, took so many different forms and influenced so many other sects - Manichaeism encompasses all these forms and influences - this is not to suggest that the original Manichaeism was not a religion - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not know how reliable we regard this site here, but encyclopedia.com (https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/religious-movements) states: "Religions consist of beliefs, symbols, practices, and organizations. Endogenous movements seek to change one or more of these aspects of a religion." Manichaeism does not "change" a religion but regards itself as a new religion from the very beginning. Since Manichaeism itself was "syncretic" and open minded for syncretism, I am not sure just because it takes on different forms, mean that it abandoned its original messeage. The german Wikipedia calls Manichaeism a "revelation religion" (just like Christianity and Islam). Sure, that "religious movement" describes Manichaeism accurately?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * - I was thinking of it in terms of the Latter Day Saint movement, a collection of divergent groups that trace their origin to a single source, as many groups trace their origin to Mani - but I have no objection to calling Manichaeism a religion - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Manichaeism had an established canon, its own set of Prophets (Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus and Mani), its own idea about God/Devil and good/evil, and we have one certain founder (Mani), who not only interpretated established religions, but claimed to be a prophet on his own (he regarded Christianity as "altered" or "incomplete", just as Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, so he actually had his own religious ideas and did not just continued others), I think Manichaeism can or even should be called a "religion" (especially since it has the characteristics of "revelation religions" (such as Judaism and Islam, there a prophet receives a revelation by an angel, in case of Manichaeism, Mani received a message from his "heavenly twin") here not just a movement. Syncretism was probably part of Manichaeism, since it focused more on the concepts behind the figures rather than on the figures themselvs (Manichaens are saied to even change their termini for their audience, while its message remained the same)). "Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern Times" calls Manichaeism a "world religion" on page 37. Although, if I enter in "Google" "Manichaeism religion", the first results I got (which is Wikipedia and another online encyclopedias) refer to Manichaeism as "movement". "https://www.britannica.com/topic/Manichaeism", refers to Manichaeism as a "movement". But these are only two as it seems (And yes, Manichaeism was fluental in Near-Middle-Central Asia, so I would assume, the source mentioned before will be right). Therefore, if noone else has an objection (and none was made for sevral days), I will now change it to "religion".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Manicheïsm as movement within chrstiani
It was a movement of Christianity instead of a rival. My edit was undone, however the claim that it was a rival was also not based on sources Kubusia00 (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * While Manichaeism engaged in syncretism with Christianity, it is not a form of Christianity, and spread as far as China in the opposite direction from Europe without acquiring any specifically christian characteristics. Furthermore your edit summary was that you were basing this on a university lecture you claimed to attend. So on one hand we have a preponderance of references in the article, even if they aren't linked to that specific sentence. On the other we have your say-so. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Mani himself was born in either a Christian or a Jewish sect, but he believed to have received a revelation, he still regards as the fulfillment of Christianity, but just as he regards it as the fulfillment of Zorastrianism and Buddhism. He does not believe in the redemption death of Jesus, as in Christianity, established his own Canon of Scriptures, rejected the Old Testamental Deity and introduced other prophets not included in Christianity, such as Buddha and Zoraster. It might have started as a "movement", but only as every religion starts developes from another religion. Manichaeism is too complex and unique, and became much more than just a movement.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Excessive translation hampers readability of lede section
I've seen this topic (excessive translations) discussed on other articles before, back when I was an active editor. Here's my concern today. This article begins like this:


 * Manichæism (in New Persian آیین مانی Ãyīnⁱ Mānī; ) was a major religion founded by the Iranian prophet Mani (Middle Persian Mānī, New Persian: مانی Mānī, Syriac Mānī, Greek Μάνης, c. 216–274 AD) in the Sasanian Empire.

The actual text that the reader needs here is:


 * Manichæism was a major religion founded by the Iranian prophet Mani (c. 216–274 AD) in the Sasanian Empire.

I had heard of Manichæism before today, but today was the first time I needed to know what it was, so I came here and had to wade through the above mess to get to the heart of it. The very purpose of the lede sentence is to quickly give the reader a sense of the topic. This does not help, and is very annoying.

I've seen other articles trim their multitudinous translations and I think this one needs to as well. Include them somewhere else--maybe we need a new type of infobox--but quit hampering the reader, for whom we all write. Unschool 17:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

untitled
I definitely disagree the the other commnetator's opinion, that the translation is «excessive». Wikipedia is surely not for people prone to inferiority fits, when confronted with languages they don't speak. The same author, seems to know for sure, what I, and most other Wikipedia users, «need to know». He can easily skip parts of a Wikipedia article, he does not «need to read». Others might find exactly those parts interesting. I, for one, surely do not want to dictate him/her what to read, and what s/he should be not allowed to read. Wikipedia entries are not supposed to be as easily digestible, as some gutter-press articles, targeting semi-illiterate audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisipojakene (talk • contribs) 11:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a correction to the text. The timeframe of Mani is, of course, the Parthian Empire, not the Sassanian as stated. Doctorphoebe (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Need for revision by expert
In connection with working on a text where I needed to refer to three basic facts about the spread of Manichaeism to Rome, I checked the corresponding statements in the Wikipedia article against reputable peer-reviewed publications, and all three pieces of information in the section on Manichaeism in the Roman Empire in the Wikipedia article seem to be at least open to serious doubt, and perhaps factually incorrect. Diocletian's edict against the Manichaeans is in scholarly sources dated to 297, not 302 (see, e.g., Robin M. Jensen, "Christianity in Roman Africa", in the Cambridge History to the Ancient World (2013), vol 2, p. 275). The text of the edict is reproduced from an anthology by Gardner & Lieu (2004), but when one checks the reference given in that anthology, De Maleficiis et Manichaeis does not seem to be the title of the edict itself but a slightly garbled version of the title of the chapter in the 4th-century book that (as the article does state correctly) includes the text of the edict. Gardner & Lieu (2004: 117) also write that the identity of the first missionary to bring Manichaeism into the city of Rome is unknown, and that the single source that provides any information is an early 6th-century text that claims that a certain Bundos did so during the reign of Diocletian. I have found no reference in any reputable publication supporting the unsourced statement in the Wikipedia article that a certain Psattiq did so in the year 280. The fact that three out of three pieces of information seem to contradict what one finds in scholarly literature may be a statistical chance occurrence, but it does suggest that the article needs the attention of somebody who is an expert on the topic. Okh123456 (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)