We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Here, I turn to the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and read it together with the Cologne Mani Codex. I argue that its anti-Pauline sentiment, which reaches its highest pitch when polemicizing against visionary forms of revelation, is responding to Mani’s claims to be the Apostle of Jesus Christ. I first show that the language of “seminal fluids and blood” of the two prophets in the Homilies is designed to show that the True Prophet cannot be human. The same holds for the cryptic passage about Jesus “changing forms and names,” since only a divine substance - and not a human being - can be the True Prophet. I then turn to the Homilies’ anti-Pauline critique of visionary forms of revelation. I place these together with the Cologne Mani Codex, which presents Mani as a “Second Paul” who acquires prognosis through visionary means. I ultimately argue that the Homilies’ “anti-Pauline” sentiment is directed against Mani (among others).
In the next three chapters, I argue that conceptions of “prophethood” cannot be separated from the specific rhetorical contexts in which they are articulated. In this chapter, I argue that “prophethood” as found in Baraies the Teacher’s homily in the Cologne Mani Codex shows that “Manichaeism” had not yet “parted ways” from its earlier “Jewish Christian” and “Elchasaite roots” since Baraies invents a new concept of prophethood designed to graft Mani into an already existing Elchasaite history. I show that Baraies’ notion of prophethood is new because he is responding to a problem that never arose in Mani’s lifetime, and, he cites from Mani’s own books, but none of them say what Baraies wants him to say. If Baraies is trying to demonstrate to his opponents that Mani should be included in prior history, then we cannot yet say that the two religions had definitively parted ways, only that Mani continued to be a point of contention within an already-existing community. Prophethood is thus a rhetorical tool for Baraies to make his argument, which is ultimately over who are the stewards of Elchasaite history and its true spokespeople.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.