Terebinthus

Terebinthus (also Terebinthus of Turbo ) was a purported pupil of Scythianus, during the 1st to 2nd century AD, according to the writings of Christian writer and anti-Manichaean polemicist Cyril of Jerusalem, and is mentioned earlier in the anonymously written, critical biography of Mani known as Acta Archelai.

Biography
According to Cyril's anti-Manichaean works and in other Orthodox polemic, Terebinthus went to Judaea and later returned to Syria Palaestina ("becoming known and condemned" there), and ultimately settled in Babylonia. He is also said to have brought with him the books of Scythianus, which he presented upon his death to his lodger, a widow with a slave named Cubricus, who later changed his name to Mani. Mani allegedly studied the books, which thereby become the source of Manichean doctrine.

"But Terebinthus, his disciple in this wicked error, inherited his money and books and heresy, and came to Palestine, and becoming known and condemned in Judæa he resolved to pass into Persia: but lest he should be recognised there also by his name he changed it and called himself Buddas. However, he found adversaries there also in the priests of Mithras: and being confuted in the discussion of many arguments and controversies, and at last hard pressed, he took refuge with a certain widow. Then having gone up on the housetop, and summoned the dæmons of the air, whom the Manichees to this day invoke over their abominable ceremony of the fig, he was smitten of God, and cast down from the housetop, and expired: and so the second beast was cut off."

- Cyril of Jerusalem

This story can be found also in Acta Archelai, an anti-manichean scripture written in Syriac language, which is ascribed to the late 4th-century AD writer Hegemonios. The story is again repeat in Lexicon Suidae (10th century) in an article dedicated to Mani. According to the Lexicon, the names of the books were: Mysterium, Evangelium, Thesaurum and Capitum (meaning "Mystery", "Gospel", "Treasury", and "Book of Chapters" respectively).

However, according to A. A. Bevan, this account "has no claim to be considered historical".