Manichaeism

The most interesting aspect of Manichaeism is certainly its syncretic nature. It obviously combines many religious traditions: here we see Jesus described in many aspects, simultaneously a "buddha" and an aspect of the (ancient Mesopotamian) moon god; Mani's explication of the end of the world takes directly from the Christian gospels, but uses them to explain how the Zoroastrian principles of light and darkness will one day be separated into pure forms. However, unlike the model of syncretism we debunked in class, our readings suggest that Mani was an actual person, and was largely responsible for the synthesizing all the religious elements in his teachings. This may afford us a new way of understanding syncretism. In the face of a confusion of religious influences, individual people sometimes attempt to organize the deities of different religions into a single system, postulating a system of rules and a body of narratives that allow the different religious influences to coexist. Obviously, which religions are included, and which overarching systems are used to bring them into communication, are dependent on the lived context of the synthesizer. This model would be acceptable to our class' criteria, given that it re-imagines syncretism as a localized and historically specific practice of individuals.

If I may critique the readings by Klimkeit and Aitken slightly, neither of these readings successfully present Manichaeism as a lived practice. Where did Manicheans worship? What kinds of relationships did Manicheans have with adherents of different religions? A case study, based on historical and archeaological evidence, would have breathed life into their discussions.