Manichaeism was an important movement within Christianity that had many followers until the Middle Ages. What we know of it has always been based largely on the work of Christian Church Fathers. Research by VU PhD student Roland van Vliet provides new insights into this age-old religion.
Manichaeism was founded by the Persian prophet Mani (216-276). It was one of the many schools of thought that existed within Christianity at that time. What made it attractive as a successor to the many 'pagan' religions of that period was that it was a combination of all kinds of characteristics from other, successful religions.
Manichaeism was dualistic. That is, it had a sharp contrast between good and evil, between light and dark, between soul and matter. Mani told his followers, among other things, that they could come back into the light by thinking clearly and rationally.
An important difference between Manichaeism and Christianity as it developed in late antiquity was the nature of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church Father Augustine, who was himself a Manichaean for nine years, along with other authors described the status of Jesus Christ in Manichaeism as "docetic":because of the Manichaean division between soul and matter, the "divine being of light" could not possibly really walked the earth as a human being.
Because both Jesus and the story of his crucifixion and resurrection recur in Manichaeism, the solution was devised that Jesus only appeared on earth spiritually and 'simulated' that he was human. The divine Jesus cannot undergo earthly suffering. The suffering of Jesus was only an appearance, says Augustine in his writing 'Against Faustus'.
Much more 'Christian'
Most of the knowledge we now have of Manichaeism is based on this Augustine. But doesn't modern science have more to say about it? PhD student Roland van Vliet has researched many (mainly Coptic) Manichaean writings and comes up with no fewer than sixteen arguments as to why there was no such radical dualism in Manichaeism. In Western sources, especially in the Coptica, there are several passages describing how the Savior on the cross did suffer as a human being. Manichaean texts from Persia also show how Jesus died on the cross as a human being.
How can these sources be reconciled with the picture that Augustine and other great Christian writers present of Manichaeism? How did Mani and his followers really see Jesus? According to Van Vliet, the key to this lies in a statement by Bishop Faustus against Augustine. The pivotal moment for Jesus' incarnation in Manichaeism is his baptism in the Jordan River. Before that baptism, Christ was purely divine, not the son of Mary, and did not undergo any embryonic development. With baptism, the divine Christ and the historical Jesus became one. A nice compromise between docetism before baptism, and no more docetism after.
Manichaeism has both a Prince of Light and a Prince of Darkness. But according to Van Vliet, there is also an implicit monotheism:the idea that there is only one real god. That means that Manichaeism is mainly a Christian movement, and was much less influenced by Persia, where Mani came from.