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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2009
Throughout his life, Augustine faced the charge that, despite his apparent conversion to the orthodox Christian faith of the Catholic Church, his thought nonetheless retained vestiges of his roughly ten-year sojourn with the Manichees. No one was more relentless in this accusation than Augustine's Pelagian nemesis of his twilight years, Julian of Eclanum. Throughout most of church history, Augustine's reputation was little troubled by these allegations of crypto-Manichaeism. However, over the last century or so, the charge has once again taken on life. This article begins with a brief orientation to some of the main philosophical and theological tenets of Manichaeism, with an emphasis on those elements that will be important for assessing the Augustine question. Next, the history of the accusation that the Christian Augustine remained, in important if unconscious ways, a crypto-Manichaean will be traced from the time of Augustine to the present. Finally, one methodological direction in which an eventual resolution to this long-standing question may lie will be considered.
1 See Augustine's Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, IV.42. Critical edn by Michaela Zelzer, Contra Iulianum (opus imperfectum), CSEL 85 (Vindobonae: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1974). For a recent English trans. of the relevant passage see Answer to the Pelagians, vol. 3, Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, trans. Roland J. Teske (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1999), p. 421.
2 Matson, Wallace, A New History of Philosophy, vol. 1, From Thales to Ockham (2nd edn, New York: Harcourt, 2000 [1987]), p. 240Google Scholar.
3 Helpful sources on Manichaeism in general include: Brunner, Christopher J., ‘The Ontological Relation between Evil and Existents in Manichaean Texts and in Augustine's Interpretation of Manichaeism’, in Morewedge, Parviz (ed.), Philosophies of Existence: Ancient and Medieval (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982), pp. 78–95Google Scholar; Bryder, P. (ed.), Manichaean Studies: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manichaeism (Lund: Plus Ultra, 1988)Google Scholar; Decret, Francois, Aspects du Manicheisme dans l'Afrique Romaine: Les controverses de Fortunatus, Faustus et Felix avec saint Augustin (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1970)Google Scholar; Ithamar Gruenwald, ‘Manichaeism and Judaism in Light of the Cologne Mani Codex’, in From Apocalypticism to Gnosticism: Studies in Apocalypticism, Merkavah Mysticism, and Gnosticism (New York: Lang, 1988), pp. 253–77; Koenen, Ludwig, ‘How Dualistic is Mani's Dualism?’, in Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis: Atti del Secondo Simposio Internazionale, ed. Cirillo, Luigi (Cosenza: Marra, 1990), pp. 1–34Google Scholar; Lieu, Samuel N. C., Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China: A Historical Survey (2nd rev. edn, Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992 [1985])Google Scholar; Mirecki, Paul and BeDuhn, Jason (eds), Emerging from Darkness: Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean Sources (Leiden: Brill, 1997)Google Scholar and The Light and the Darkness: Studies in Manichaeism and its World (Boston, MA: Brill, 2001); Viciano, Albrecht, ‘Mani (216–276) and Manichaeism’, in Kannengiessar, Charles (ed.), Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity, 2 vols (Boston: Brill, 2004), vol. 1, pp. 647–69Google Scholar.
4 The critical edn of this Greek text was originally published by A. Henrichs and L. Koenen in several issues of Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik over a span of seven years: 19 (1975), pp. 1–85; 32 (1978), pp. 87–199; 44 (1981), pp. 201–318; 48 (1982), pp. 1–59. For an English trans. by Ron Cameron and Arthur J. Dewey of the published text available in 1979 see The Cologne Mani Codex (P. Colon. Inv nr. 4780) ‘Concerning the Origin of His Body’ (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979).
5 Most scholars now largely reject the Zoroastrian origins of Manichaeism; see e.g. Rossbach, Stefan, Gnostic Wars: The Cold War in the Context of a History of Western Spirituality (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999), p. 63Google Scholar. Some, however, continue to argue that Zoroastrian influence is still to be taken seriously; see e.g. Werner Sundermann, ‘How Zoroastrian is Mani's Dualism?’, in Luigi Cirillo and Alois Van Tongerloo (eds), Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale di Studi ‘Manicheismo e Oriente Cristiano Antico’ (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), pp. 343–60. Also relevant is the observation that, among other polemical labellings (e.g. ‘insane’, ‘demonic’, ‘unoriginal’, ‘heretical’, ‘illegal’, ‘impure’), by the fourth-century's end, Manichaeism was also widely known as ‘foreign’, and specifically ‘Persian’. See J. Kevin Coyle, ‘Foreign and Insane: Labelling Manichaeism in the Roman Empire’, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 33 (2004), pp. 217–34.
6 See Gruenwald, ‘Manichaeism and Judaism’, for a good summary of Mani's background.
7 Against the common claim that Mani's thought-world held no place for esotericism and magic see Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, ‘Esoterism in Mani's Thought and Background’, in Luigi Cirillo (ed.), Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis: Atti del Simposio Internazionale (Cosenza: Marra Editore, 1986), pp. 153–68; Paul Mirecki, ‘Manichaean Allusions to Ritual and Magic: Spells for Invisibility in the Coptic Kephalaia’, in Mirecki and BeDuhn, Light and Darkness, pp. 173–80.
8 This Manichaean penchant for certain aspects of Paul's writings will become an important consideration below. On the Manichaean use of Paul see Hans Dieter Betz, ‘Paul in the Mani Biography (Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis)’, in Cirillo (ed.), Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis: Atti, pp. 215–34; Luigi Cirillo, ‘The NOUS in the “Corpus Paulinum”‘, in Alois Van Tongerloo, with Johannes Van Oort (eds), The Manichaean NOUS: Proceedings of the International Symposium Organized in Louvain from 31 July to 3 August 1991, Manichaean Studies, 2 (Louvain: Ultraiecti, 1995), pp. 51–63; John Kevin Coyle, Augustine's ‘De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae’: A Study of the Work, its Composition and its Sources (Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 1978), p. 148; F. Decret, ‘La figure de Saint Paul et l'interpretation de sa doctrine dans le manicheisme’, in L. Padovese (ed.), Atti del I Simposio di Tarso su S. Paolo Apostolo (Rome: Instituto Francescano di Spiritalita Pontificio Ateneo Antoniano, 1993), pp. 105–15; idem, ‘L'utilisation des Epitres de Paul chez les Manicheens d'Afrique’, in J. Ries, F. Decret, W. H. C. Frend and M. G. Mara (eds), Le Epistole Paoline nei Manichei, i Donatisti e il primo Agistino (Rome: Istituto Patristico Augustinianum, 1989), pp. 29–83; W. H. C. Frend, ‘The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa’, Journal of Ecclesiastical Studies 4 (1953), pp. 21–2.
9 Frend, ‘Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition’, p. 21. A similar observation is made by Gilles Quispel, review of J. Ries et al., Le Epistole Paoline nei Manichei, I Donatisti e il primo Agostino, VigChr 44 (1990), p. 402.
10 On the broader Gnostic sexual myth see Gedaliahu G Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (Leiden: Brill, 1984), esp. pp. 169ff. Stroumsa discusses ‘Gnostic myths in Manichaean garb’ on pp. 145–67.
11 Johannes van Oort, ‘Augustine and Mani on concupiscentia sexualis’, in J. den Boeft (ed.), Augustiniana Traiectina (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1987), p. 141.
12 The Manichaean fascination with things astrological is tied in here. It is probably the case that Mani derived his astrological interest, at least in part, from Elchasai and Bardaisan; see F. Stanley Jones, ‘The Astrological Trajectory in Ancient Syriac-Speaking Christianity (Elchasai, Bardaisan, and Mani)’, in Cirillo and Van Tongerloo (eds), Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale, pp. 183–200.
13 On this process see Jason David BeDuhn, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000); idem, ‘The Metabolism of Salvation: Manichaean Concepts of Human Physiology’, in Mirecki and BeDuhn, Light and Darkness, pp. 5–37.
14 The renowned Augustine scholar Pierre Courcelle was one of the first to point out Augustine's inconsistency on this point (i.e. compare the ‘nine year’ claim in bk 4 with the apparent ten-year timeline in bk 5), concluding that he was with the Manichaeans for ten years; see Recherches sur les Confessions de Saint Augustin (Paris: de Boccard, 1950), p. 78. A number of scholars have followed Courcelle on this point; e.g. Frend, ‘Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition’, p. 22, and ‘Pythagoreanism and Hermeticism in Augustine's “Hidden Years”‘, in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989), p. 260 (‘more than a decade’); J. Van Oort, ‘Manichaeism in Augustine's De civitate Dei’, in E. Cavalcanti (ed.), Il De Civitate Dei (Rome: Herder, 1996), p. 191; John Rist, ‘Augustine of Hippo’, in G. R. Evans (ed.), The Medieval Theologians (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), p. 4. For a helpful articulation of the ‘ten years’ case see Leo C. Ferrari, ‘Augustine's “Nine Years” as a Manichee’, Augustiniana 25 (1975), pp. 210–16.
15 Contrary to some earlier estimations, most scholars now agree that – despite Augustine's obvious polemical rhetoric – his presentation of Manichaean thought is generally quite accurate (if not always precisely correct), at least with regard to its fourth-century Numidian manifestation. See Coyle, J. Kevin, ‘What did Augustine Know about Manichaeism when he Wrote his Two Treatises De Moribus?’, in Oort, J. Van et al. (eds), Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West: Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht Symposium of the International Association of Manichaean Studies (IAMS) (Boston, MA: Brill, 2001), pp. 43–56Google Scholar; Oort, J. Van, ‘Augustin und der Manichäismus’, Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 46 (1994), p. 128Google Scholar; idem, Jerusalem and Babylon: A Study into Augustine's City of God and the Sources of his Doctrine of the Two Cities (New York: Brill, 1991), p. 45. For a convincing case that Augustine's intimate knowledge of Manichaeism and its texts came during his younger years as a Hearer (as opposed his later years as a Catholic), see Van Oort, ‘The Young Augustine's Knowledge of Manichaeism: An Analysis of the Confessiones and Some Other Relevant Texts’, Vigilae Christianae 62 (2008), pp. 441–66. That he was well acquainted with Manichaean thought well into his later years is apparent; see Van Oort, ‘Manichaeism in Augustine's De civitate Dei’, p. 214.
16 Leo Ferrari has made an intriguing case for the young Augustine's fascination with astrology as playing an important role both in his embrace and eventual rejection of Manichaeism, and for the claim that Augustine remained a Catholic catechumen throughout his Manichaean years. See Ferrari, ‘Astronomy and Augustine's Break with the Manichees’, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 19 (1973), pp. 263–76; ‘Augustine and Astrology’, Laval Theologique et Philosophique 33 (1977), pp. 241–51; ‘Halley's Comet of 374 AD’, Augustiniana 27 (1977), pp. 139–50; ‘Young Augustine: Both Catholic and Manichee’, Augustinian Studies 26 (1995), pp. 109–28. The young Augustine's interest in things astrological, hermetic and Pythagorean has been documented; beyond Ferrari's articles above see Frend, ‘Pythagoreanism and Hermeticism’; David Pingree, ‘Astrologia, astronomia’, in Cornelius Mayer (ed.), Augustinus-Lexikon (Basel: Schwabe, 1986–94), vol. 1, col. 482; Georges Tavard, ‘St. Augustine between Mani and Christ’, Patristic and Byzantine Review 5 (1986), p. 199. For a review of Augustine's relationship with astrology over the course of his life see Pingree, ‘Astrologia, astronomia’, cols. 482–90.
17 O'Meara, John J., Understanding Augustine (Portland, OR: Four Courts, 1997), p. 15Google Scholar.
18 Mourant, J. A., ‘Augustine and the Academics’, Recherches Augustiniennes 4 (1966), p. 95Google Scholar. Mourant has argued that Augustine's supposed ‘Skeptical’ period (see Confessions 8) was not precisely that. Rather, ‘the evidence points to the greater persistence of the Manichaean influence upon the mind of Augustine. The doubts that Augustine experienced in this period of his life are not the doubts of a philosopher but those of a religious man. His doubts are directed to those Manichean principles that stand as an obstacle to the acceptance of Christiantity . . . . The Academics provided Augustine with the necessary means to challenge the Manichean position . . . The gradualness of the slow return to Christianity can be correlated to the gradual decline in the effectiveness of the Manichean influence. It is also a testimony to the strength of Augustine's Manichean convictions and the long hold that this doctrine exercised upon him’ (pp. 77–8). It should be noted that some have questioned whether Augustine ever truly became a Manichaean. One can trace this charge to Secundinus, a Manichaean Hearer, in the early fifth-century (Secundinus, Letter to Augustine). While a few modern scholars have returned to Secundinus’ contention, most rightly reject it. See Coyle, K., ‘Saint Augustine's Manichaean Legacy’, Augustinian Studies 34 (2003), pp. 7–9Google Scholar. On Secundinus’ letter see J. Van Oort, ‘Secundini Manichaei Epistula: Roman Manichaean “Biblical” Argument in the Age of Augustine’, in Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, pp. 161–73.
19 This means, of course, that Augustine would have been quite familiar with the Pauline corpus – and their Manichaean interpretation – well before the famous Garden conversion scene in his Confessions. The fact that he presents things otherwise only supports the now common assessment that more is going on in the Confessions than simple, straightforward autobiography. In the words of J. J. O'Meara, ‘It is quite impossible to believe that Augustine had not read St. Paul fairly thoroughly – with Manichaean eyes, of course’: The Young Augustine: The Growth of St Augustine's Mind up to his Conversion (Staten Island, NY: Alba, 1965 [1954]), p. 63. The consensus here is wide-ranging; see e.g. Bammel, C. P., ‘Augustine, Origen and the Exegesis of St. Paul’, Augustinianum 32 (1992), p. 348CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ferrari, ‘Augustine's “Discovery” of Paul (Confessions 7.21.27)’, Augustinian Studies 22 (1991), pp. 48–54; idem, ‘Isaiah and the Early Augustine’, in B. Bruning, et al (eds.), Collectanea Augustiana: mélanges T. J. van Bavel (Leuven: Peeters, 1990), vol. 2, pp. 744–5, 747; Coyle, ‘What did Augustine Know?’, pp. 50–1; Basil Studer, The Grace of Christ and the Grace of God in Augustine of Hippo: Christocentrism or Theocentrism?, trans. Matthew J. O'Connell (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1997), p. 101; Babcock, ‘Comment: Augustine, Paul, and the Question of Moral Evil’, in W. Babcock (ed.), Paul and the Legacies of Paul (Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990), p. 253; R. A. Markus, ‘Augustine's Confessions and the Controversy with Julian of Eclanum: Manichaeism Revisited’, in Sacred and Secular: Studies on Augustine and Latin Christianity (Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1994), XIX, pp. 916–17; Roland Teske, ‘Augustine, the Manichees and the Bible’, in Pamela Bright (ed. and trans.), Augustine and the Bible (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997 [1986]), p. 210.
20 Teske, ‘Augustine, the Manichees and the Bible’, p. 214.
21 E.g. his reaction to Ambrose's request that he read Isaiah; on this matter see Ferrari, ‘Isaiah and the Early Augustine’.
22 Cited in More, Paul E., ‘The Dualism of Saint Augustine’, Hibbert Journal 6 (1908), p. 606Google Scholar.
23 For helpful introductions to Augustine's anti-Manichaean texts see Coyle, J. Kevin, ‘Anti-Manichean Works’, in Fitzgerald, Allan D. (ed.), Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 39–41Google Scholar; Giverson, Soren, ‘Manichaean Literature and the Writings of Augustine’, in Keck, Egon, Sondergaard, Svend and Wulft, Ellen (eds), Living Waters: Scandinavian Orientalistic Studies, Presented to Professor Dr Frede Lokkegaard (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1990), pp. 63–74Google Scholar.
24 Here, Van Oort explores an idea first suggested by Courcelle. On the Confessions as a primarily anti-Manichaean tract (visible as such once one recognises such features as well-crafted word-plays on, and allusions to, the Manichaean thought-world), see J. Van Oort, ‘Manichaeism and Anti-Manichaeism in Augustine's Confessions’, in Cirillo and Van Tongerloo (eds), Atti del Terzo, pp. 235–47; Van Oort, ‘Augustine's Critique of Manichaeism: The Case of Confessions III,6,10 and its Implications’, in Pieter W. van der Horst (ed.), Aspects of Religious Contact and Controversy in the Ancient World (Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 1995), pp. 57–68. See also the recent work of Annemaré Kotzé, including her ‘Reading Psalm 4 to the Manichaeans’, Vigiliae Christianae 55 (2001), pp. 119–36; Augustine's Confessions: Communicative Purpose and Audience (Boston, MA: Brill, 2004), esp. pp. 197–247; ‘Augustine, Paul and the Manichees’, in Cilliers Breytenbach et al. (eds), The New Testament Interpreted: Essays in Honour of Bernard C. Lategan (Boston, MA: Brill, 2006), pp. 163–74; ‘Augustine's Confessions: The Social and Literary Context’, Acta Classica 49 (2006), pp. 145–66; ‘The “Anti-Manichaean” Passage in Confessions 3 and its “Manichaean Audience”‘, Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008), pp. 187–200. In a forthcoming article (‘Augustine Accused: Megalius, Manichaeism, and the Inception of the Confessions’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 17), Jason BeDuhn argues that one of the significant motivations behind Augustine's production of the Confessions was his desire to neutralise the lingering accusations of crypto-Manichaeism that continued to plague him. I am grateful to BeDuhn for making this article available to me prior to publication.
25 Ferrari makes the case for this claim in ‘Isaiah and the Early Augustine’.
26 See Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 11(10), 19(16), 20(17): CSEL 52.172, 177–8; idem, Against Cresconius, 3. 80, 92. For helpful discussions see especially BeDuhn, ‘Augustine Accused’; also Frend, ‘Manichaeism in the Struggle between Saint Augustine and Petillian of Constantine’, in Augustinus Magister: Congres International Augustinien, Paris, 21–24 septembre 1954, 2 vols (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1954), vol. 2, pp. 862–3.
27 E.g. Courcelle, Pierre, Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin (2nd edn, Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1968), p. 239Google Scholar, n. 2. This is, of course, only a hypothesis, and far from a historical certainty.
28 As Prosper reveals in his Letter to Augustine 3, written around 427. See also Letter to Rufinus 3, 4. Marianne Djuth discusses this point in ‘The Hermeneutics of De libero arbitrio III: Are there Two Augustines?’, in Livingstone, E. A. (ed.), Studia Patristica 27 (Louvain: Peeters, 1993), p. 281Google Scholar.
29 Frend, ‘Manichaeism in the Struggle’, p. 865; see pp. 864–65. Frend's essay on ‘The Gnostic–Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa’ is very helpful here. He reminds us that, at this point in time, North Africa contained three competing forms of Christianity: Donatism, Catholicism, and a Gnostic-Manichaean tradition. While the Donatists were quite insulated from losing converts to Manichaeism, the conversion boundaries between Catholics and Manichees were more permeable. In North Africa, superstition and astrology were common, and thus Manichaeism's astrological elements could be particularly attractive. North African Manichaeism ‘flourished’ in Augustine's day, with a membership that included ‘civil servants, merchants, lawyers, and not a few Catholic clergy’; Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p. 661. See also Miles, Margaret R., ‘“Jesus patibilis”: Nature and Responsibility in Augustine's Debate with the Manichaeans’, in Lee, Sang Hyun, Proudfoot, Wayne and Blackwell, Albert (eds.), Faithful Imagining: Essays in Honor of Richard R. Niebuhr (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), p. 7Google Scholar; Kotzé, ‘Augustine, Paul, and the Manichees’, p. 165; O'Donnell, J. J., Augustine: Confessions, 3 vols (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 34–5Google Scholar.
30 Julian's works (e.g. To Florus, To Turbantius, etc.), of course, do not survive outside of the passages quoted by Augustine in his responses. For Julian's various charges that Augustine's theology retains Manichaean elements see Augustine's Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian, 1. 115, 123; 5. 25; etc.; again, see 4. 42 for the famous ‘leopard's spots’ quip. For an introduction to Julian, including a helpful bibliography see Mathijs Lamberigts, ‘Julian of Eclanum’, in Augustine through the Ages, pp. 478–9.
31 The respected Augustine scholar Gerald Bonner identifies Julian as ‘the most formidable antagonist that [Augustine] ever encountered’; ‘Pelagianism Reconsidered’, in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 27 (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), p. 240.
32 Unfinished Work, 5. 25 (trans. Teske, p. 549).
33 On Julian's accusation of crypto-Manichaeism against Augustine see Clark, Elizabeth A., ‘Vitiated Seeds and Holy Vessels: Augustine's Manichean Past’, in King, Karen L. (ed.), Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), pp. 367–401Google Scholar; Evans, Gillian R., ‘Neither a Pelagian Nor a Manichee’, Vigiliae Christianae 35 (1981), pp. 232–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mathijs Lamberigts, ‘Was Augustine a Manichaean? The Assessment of Julian of Aeclanum’, in Van Oort et al. (eds), Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, pp. 113–36; Markus, ‘Augustine's Confessions and the Controversy’; Scheppard, Carol, ‘The Transmission of Sin in the Seed: A Debate between Augustine of Hippo and Julian of Eclanum’, in Ferguson, Everett (ed.), Doctrinal Diversity: Varieties of Early Christianity (New York: Garland, 1999), pp. 233–44Google Scholar.
34 Unfinished Work, 5. 25 (trans. Teske, p. 548). As Robert Evans has noted, combating ‘Manichaean fatalism’ was a common activity of Christian theologians of the day; Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals (New York: Seabury, 1968), p. 22.
35 Unfinished Work, 4. 47–50; 6. 41 (trans. Teske, pp. 426–9, 718).
36 Clark, ‘Vitiated Seeds’, p. 395.
37 Unfinished Work, 5. 25 (trans. Teske, pp. 548–9). Following from this point, Julian also argues that, since Augustine believes that when two baptised Christian spouses procreate, they nonetheless retain enough original sin to pass it on to their offspring, he must deny that all sins are forgiven at baptism; Augustine, Answer to Julian, 2. 2 (trans. R. Teske, Answer to the Pelagians, 2, Marriage and Desire, Answer to the Two Letters of the Pelagians, Answer to Julian (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1998), p. 304).
38 Unfinished Work, 5. 25 (trans. Teske, p. 548); Answer to Julian, 6. 21/66 (trans. Teske, p. 522).
39 Augustine, Answer to the Two Letters of the Pelagian 1. 4, 10; Marriage and Desire 2. 15, 34, 38, 49, 50; Unfinished Work, 1. 24, 115. Notable discussions of this aspect of Julian's argument include Lamberigts, ‘Was Augustine a Manichaean?’; Scheppard, ‘Transmission of Sin’; and especially Clark, ‘Vitiated Seeds and Holy Vessels’. See also Paula Fredriksen's ‘Response to “Vitiated Seeds and Holy Vessels: Augustine's Manichean Past” by Elizabeth Clark’, in King (ed.), Images of the Feminine, pp. 402–9.
40 Specifically, he compared Augustine's teaching in Marriage and Desire with (what Julian argued was) Mani's Letter to Menoch, focusing upon their similar views of concupiscence, etc.
41 On the ‘shameful desire’ of the sex act see Unfinished Work 2. 45 (trans. Teske, p. 182). Contrary to some, Augustine's view of original sin would not have excluded Mary. While later medieval theologians read Augustine's words on Mary in On Nature and Grace (pp. 36, 42) as suggesting an immaculate conception, this is a misreading of the text. Augustine states that the body of Mary did, in fact, come from concupiscence (Unfinished Work 5. 15, 52).
42 Unfinished Work 2. 56 (trans. Teske, p. 188).
43 Unfinished Work 2. 178 (trans. Teske, p. 244). Here, Julian explicitly lumps Tertullian with Mani as well.
44 E.g. see Answer to Julian 1. 3, 36, 42; 6. 66–7 (trans. Teske, pp. 269, 294–5, 298, 522–3); Unfinished Work 5. 25 (trans. Teske, p. 549).
45 Evans, ‘Neither a Pelagian Nor a Manichee’, p. 233.
46 Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum: Ein Leben und seine Lehre (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897). For bibliography on the history of the crypto-Manichaean charge in modern Augustinian scholarship see Coyle, ‘Legacy’, p. 18, n. 81.
47 More, Paul E., ‘The Dualism of Saint Augustine’, Hibbert Journal 6 (1908), p. 609Google Scholar.
48 Tondelli, L., Mani: Rapporti con Bardesane, S. Agostino, Dante (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1932), pp. 75–105Google Scholar.
49 E.g. see Adam, Alfred, ‘Das Fortwirken des Manichaismus bei Augustin’, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 69 (1958), pp. 1–25Google Scholar (repr. in his Sprache und Dogma (Gutersloh: Ruhbach, 1969), pp. 141–66); Lope Cilleruelo, ‘La oculta presencia del manqueismo en la “Ciudad de Dois”’, in Estudios sobre la ‘Ciudad de Dios’ I (Madrid: Real Monasterio de San Lorenzo del Escorial, 1955), pp. 475–509; Frend, ‘Gnostic–Manichaean Tradition’.
50 As noted by Coyle, ‘Legacy’, p. 1.
51 Oort, Van, ‘Augustinus en het manicheïsme’, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdscrift 47 (1993), pp. 276–7Google Scholar (trans. Coyle, ‘Augustine's Manichaean Legacy’, pp. 1–2).
52 See e.g. Burnaby, J., Amor Dei: A Study of the Religion of St. Augustine (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1938), p. 231Google Scholar; Greer, Rowan A., ‘Augustine: The Pilgrim of Hope’, in Christian Hope and Christian Life: Raids on the Inarticulate (New York: Crossroad, 2001), pp. 120–1Google Scholar.
53 Sinnige, T. G., ‘Gnostic Influences in the Early Works of Plotinus and Augustine’, in Runia, David T. (ed.), Plotinus amid Gnostics and Christians (Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1984), pp. 93–7Google Scholar; Matson, From Thales to Ockham, p. 240; as well as the scholars noted below. For a voice in defence of Augustine, see Djuth: ‘The necessity associated with ineffective choosing, though, must be distinguished from the coercive necessity that characterizes Manichaean fatalism. The former is a necessity of origin that is compatible with choosing, the latter a necessity of nature that is not’: ‘Hermeneutics of De lib arb’, pp. 287–8. Those who question the coherence of the notion of compatibilistic freedom might, of course, take issue with Djuth's contrast.
54 E. Buonaiuti, ‘The Genesis of St. Augustine's Idea of Original Sin’, HTR 10 (1917), pp. 174–5.
55 Koenen, Ludwig, ‘Augustine and Manichaeism in Light of the Cologne Mani Codex,’ Illinois Classical Studies 3 (1978) p. 161Google Scholar.
56 E.g. William Babcock writes: ‘Augustine's argument against the Manichees had rested on the claim that sin, to be sin, must be voluntary, a free exercise of will . . . . Once he became convinced, however, that sin, after the first instance, is not avoidable, the shape of his argument had inevitably to change . . . . [H]ere, despite his best efforts, his analysis swivels between a position that, in effect, reduces the first evil will to a random outcome, a chance association between agent and act, and a position that, in effect, makes the first evil will a function of God's withholding aid . . . . In this sense, at least, he did not succeed in casting off his Manichaean past or in finding a strictly moral interpretation of angelic and human evil’; ‘Augustine on Sin and Moral Agency’, Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (1988), p. 49; see also idem, ‘Comment’, p. 261. John O'Meara writes: ‘What is more, [Manichaeism's material dualism] cannot but have left its mark deeply on him, tainting for him any life of the senses with the suggestion of sin’: Understanding Augustine, p. 15. Beyond these scholars and those discussed below see O'Connell, ‘De Libero Arbitrio I: Stoicism Revisited’, Augustinian Studies 1 (1970), p. 55 (see also pp. 50, 52); Lamberigts, ‘Was Augustine a Manichaean?’, p. 135. For several helpful discussions on Augustine's theory of concupiscence see Ugo Bianchi, ‘Augustine on Concupiscence’, in Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica XXII (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), pp. 202–12; Gerald Bonner, ‘Concupiscentia’, in Mayer et al. (eds), Augustinus-Lexikon, vol.1, pp. 1113–21; Bonner, ‘Appendix C: Concupiscentia and Libido’, in St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies (Norwich: Canterbury, 1963), pp. 398–401; Peter Burnell, ‘Concupiscence’, in Augustine through the Ages, pp. 224–7.
57 Brown, Peter, Augustine and Sexuality (Berkeley, CA: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1983)Google Scholar. Others who make this point include: John O'Meara, ‘Man and Woman in Paradise’, in Understanding Augustine, pp. 131–41; M. Lamberigts, ‘Some Critiques on Augustine's View of Sexuality Revisited’, in Elizabeth A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica XXXIII (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), pp. 152–61; Lawless, George, ‘Augustine and Human Embodiment’, in Bruning, B. et al. (eds), Collectanea Augustiniana: Melanges T. J. van Bavel (Louvain: Peeters, 1990), pp. 167–86Google Scholar. On Augustine's views on these matters see also John J. Hugo, St. Augustine on Nature, Sex and Marriage (Chicago: Scepter, 1969).
58 For Julian's accusation see Unfinished Work 3, pp. 172–87. Frend notes that the Manichaean Letter to Menoch's commentary on Paul ‘stated that the evil of concupiscence was natural and permanent and was the origin of evil itself’; Rise of Christianity, p. 679.
59 For Augustine's defence of his views on original sin and concupiscence as rooted in early fathers and/or Paul see e.g. Answer to Julian, bks 1 and 2; Unfinished Work 1. 59, 67.
60 E.g. see Bonner, ‘Concupiscentia’, p. 1118.
61 Verschoren, Marleen, ‘The Appearance of the Concept of Concupiscentia in Augustine's Early Antimanichaean Writings (388–391)’, Augustiniana 52 (2002), p. 240Google Scholar.
62 Beyond the scholars mentioned below, see Bianchi, ‘Augustine on Concupiscence’, pp. 202–3; 208; Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum, pp. 66–8; Brunner, ‘Ontological Relation’, p. 78; Frend, ‘Gnostic–Manichaean Tradition’, pp. 24, 26, and Rise of Christianity, p. 663; Kam-lun Edwin Lee, ‘Augustine, Manichaeism, and the Good’, Dissertation, Com, 1997, pp. 125–39; John J. O'Meara, ‘Conditions of Controversy’, in Studies in Augustine and Eriugena (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992), p. 310; Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, trans. P. W. Coxon, et al. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1977), p. 370; Scheffczyk, Urstand, Fall und Erbsunde: Von der Schrift bis Augustinus (Freiburg: Herder, 1981), p. 205.
63 Clark, ‘Vitiated Seeds’, p. 401.
64 Ibid., p. 400, n. 264; see also p. 391.
65 Brown, ‘Sexuality and Society: Augustine’, in Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), p. 415, n. 109.
66 J. van Oort, ‘Augustine and Mani on concupiscentia sexualis’, in den Boeft (ed.), Augustiniana Traiectina, pp. 151–2.
67 J. van Oort, ‘Augustine on Sexual Concupiscence and Original Sin’, in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica XXII (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), pp. 385, 386, n. 30.
68 E.g. see J. van Oort, ‘New Light on Christian Gnosis’, Louvain Studies 24 (1999), p. 38, and ‘Manichaeism: Its Sources and Influences on Western Christianity’, in Roelof van den Broek and Wouter J. Hanegraff (eds), Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern Times (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1998), pp. 46–7.
69 Compare respectively: Coyle, Augustine's ‘De Moribus’, p. 53, with his ‘Legacy’, pp. 18–22, and idem, ‘What did Augustine Know?’, in Van Oort et al. (eds), Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, pp. 54–5; Lamberigts, ‘Some Critiques on Augustine's View of Sexuality’, p. 158 with his ‘Was Augustine a Manichaean?’, pp. 120–31, 134–6. It should be noted that in 1927 E. Buonaiuti published an article in which he claimed that Augustine's idea of massa perditionis – the ‘mass of perdition’ which is the whole of humanity, apart from those whom God elects for salvation – is derived from his Manichaean background; see ‘Manichaeism and Augustine's Idea of “Massa Perditionis”‘, HTR 20 (1927), pp. 117–27. While few scholars today are willing to make this same claim with any certainty, both Sinnige (‘It seems probable that the idea of the massa damnata had its origins in Augustine's Manichaeism’; ‘Gnostic Influences’, 97) and Frend (‘The rest of humanity, the “unredeemed mass” [Augustine retained the Manichean term], was destined for possession by the Devil and eternal fire’; Rise of Christianity, pp. 662–3; see also ‘Gnostic–Manichaean Tradition’, p. 26) have been persuaded.
70 Namely Eighty-Three Varied Questions, qu. 68 (written in 394), The Propositions from the Letter to the Romans (395), and Letter to Simplicianus (396). For discussion see W. S. Babcock, ‘Augustine's Interpretation of Romans (A.D. 394–396)’, Augustinian Studies 10 (1979), pp. 55–74. Augustine began what was to be a massive commentary on Romans during this same period, but the project stalled at Rom 1:7 and was never resumed; see his Unfinished Commentary on the Letter to the Romans.
71 On the importance of viewing Augustine's renewed interest in Paul in the 390s within the context of the wider fourth-century renaissance in Pauline study see Thomas F. Martin, ‘Miser Ego Homo: Augustine, Paul, and the Rhetorical Moment’, Ph.D. dissertation; Northwestern University, 1994, pp. 60–63; idem, ‘Vox Pauli: Augustine and the Claims to Speak for Paul. An Exploration of Rhetoric at the Service of Exegesis’, Journal of Early Christian Literature 8 (2000), pp. 241–2. This renaissance of sorts was, in part, due to Manichaean interest in Paul, and the need for opponents (like Augustine) to offer counter-interpretations.
72 On the pre-Augustinian patristic consensus with respect to a robust doctrine of human freedom, even in conjunction with the exegesis of Romans 9, etc., see Peter Gorday, Principles of Patristic Exegesis: Romans 9–11 in Origen, John Chrysostom, and Augustine (New York: Mellen, 1983); Maurice F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles in the Early Church (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 94–110, 135–6; Robert L. Wilken, ‘Free Choice and the Divine Will in Greek Christian Commentaries on Paul’, in Babcock (ed.), Paul and the Legacies of Paul, pp. 123–40.
73 On Augustine's 396 shift to an essentially ‘compatibilist’ view of human freedom and his relocation of the cause of election from the human choice to God's effectual calling see Babcock, ‘Augustine's Interpretation of Romans’; idem, ‘Augustine and Paul: The Case of Romans IX’, in E. A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica XVI (Berlin: Akademie, 1985), vol. 2, pp. 473–9; Burns, J. Patout, The Development of Augustine's Doctrine of Operative Grace (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1980), pp. 30–44Google Scholar; idem, ‘The Atmosphere of Election: Augustinianism as Common Sense’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 (1994), pp. 325–39; Ganssle, Gregory E., ‘The Development of Augustine's View of the Freedom of the Will (386–397)’, Modern Schoolman 74 (1996), pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The shift made by Augustine has been characterised by some as no less than ‘revolutionary’ – and not always in a positive direction. See e.g. Allin, Thomas, The Augustinian Revolution in Theology: Illustrated by a Comparison with the Teaching of the Antiochene Divines of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, ed. Lias, J. J. (Boston, MA: Pilgrim; Clarke & Co., 1911)Google Scholar; Greer, Rowan A., ‘Sinned we All in Adam's Fall?’, in White, L. Michael and Yarbrough, O. Larry (eds), The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), pp. 382–94Google Scholar; R. A. Markus, ‘Comment: Augustine's Pauline Legacies’, in Paul and the Legacies of Paul, 221–5. Carol Harrison's proposal that Augustine's doctrine of grace remained essentially the same throughout the 390s is unsustainable; see ‘Augustine of Hippo's Cassiciacum Confessions: Toward a Reassessment of the 390s’, Augustinian Studies 31 (2000), pp. 219–24.
74 Augustine, Retractions 2. 1. 3; cited in Joseph T. Leinhard, ‘Augustine on Grace: The Early Years’, in Fannie LeMoine and Christopher Kleinhenz (eds), Saint Augustine the Bishop: A Book of Essays (New York: Garland, 1994), p. 190. For an introduction to the letter see James Wetzel, ‘Simplicianum, Ad’, in Augustine through the Ages, pp. 798–9.
75 For various conclusions see Babcock, ‘Augustine's Interpretation of Romans’; idem, ‘Augustine and Paul: Romans IX’; Dabney, D. Lyle, ‘Nature Dis-Graced and Grace De-Natured: The Problematic of the Augustinian Doctrine of Grace for Contemporary Theology’, Journal for Christian Theological Research 5 (2000), pp. 1–30Google Scholar; Paula Fredriksen, ‘Augustine's Early Interpretation of Paul’, Ph.D. dissertation; Princeton University, 1979, esp. 209–26; Katayanagi, Eiichi, ‘The Last Congruous Vocation’, Augustiniana 41 (1991), pp. 645–57Google Scholar; Thomas Gerhard Ring's introduction to An Simplicianus, zwei Bücher über verschiedene Fragen (Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1991); Stark, Judith Chelius, ‘The Pauline Influence on Augustine's Notion of the Will’, Vigiliae Christianae 43 (1989), pp. 345–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wetzel, James, ‘Pelagius Anticipated: Grace and Election in Augustine's Ad Simplicianum’, in McWilliam, Joanne (ed.), Augustine: From Rhetor to Theologian (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1992), pp. 121–32Google Scholar.
76 Beyond the scholars discussed below, see e.g. Brunner, ‘Ontological Relation’, pp. 78, 88; O'Meara, Understanding Augustine, p. 23; Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 371; A. Schindler, ‘Augustinus’, TRE 4 (1979), p. 658. Even Peter Brown recognises the striking parallels: ‘To say, as Augustine said, that men felt their need for salvation only when stirred to do so by God, and that He has decided to stir only a few, appeared to counsel the blackest pessimism: it drew a line across the human race as immovable as the division of Good and Evil Natures proposed by Mani’; Augustine of Hippo, p. 401.
77 Sinnige, ‘Gnostic Influences’, p. 94. A. H. Armstrong concurs in no uncertain terms: ‘Here [with Augustine's later thought] . . . we are very close to the Gnostic view of the world at its darkest, and, though the figure of God is invested with a transcendent and absolute horror exceeding that of any Gnostic demiurge or even the Manichaean evil principle, his most eminent activity in the world in its present state is seen as the redemption and deliverance of the small number of the elect from its darkness. For the rest of humanity, of course, there is no hope at all, as God simultaneously with his work of redemption pursues his “awesome blood-feud against the family of Adam”’; Armstrong, A. H., ‘Dualism: Platonic, Gnostic, and Christian’, in Wallis, Richard T. and Bregman, Jay (eds.), Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (Albany: SUNY, 1992), p. 51Google Scholar.
78 Frend, ‘Gnostic–Manichaean Tradition’, pp. 25–6. In another context, Frend writes:‘ . . . [Augustine's idea of] the Christian elect would differ little from the Manichee “elect”. Their “image” as the Coptic Manichee would have said, had been chosen out-predestined to grace and salvation’: Rise of Christianity, p. 662.
79 Lee, ‘Augustine, Manichaeism, and the Good’, 204. Recently, and along these same lines, Gene Fendt has suggested that Augustine's post-396 predestinarian doctrine leads to ‘a deficiency in the love of God’ and a ‘return to a kind of Gnosticism’; ‘Between a Pelagian Rock and a Hard Predestinarianism: The Currents of Controversy in City of God 11 and 12’, Journal of Religion 81 (2001), p. 208. Fendt's conclusions are reminiscent of Julian's charge that Augustine's claim of God's arbitrary damnation of those he could have saved renders his justice meaningless; for a good discussion see Lamberigts, M., ‘Julian of Aeclanum: A Plea for a Good Creator’, Augustiniana 38 (1988), pp. 5–24Google Scholar.
80 J. van Oort, ‘Civitas dei–terrena civitas: The Concept of the Two Antithetical Cities and its Sources’, in De civitate Dei, ed. Christoph Horn (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997), p. 164. Van Oort is no doubt correct that a multi-source theory is the only plausible explanation for Augustine's ‘two cities’ motif; see the published results of his dissertation, Jerusalem and Babylon: A Study into Augustine's City of God and the Sources of his Doctrine of the Two Cities (New York: Brill, 1991), p. 351. J. J. O'Donnell, reminds us not to forget the influence of the very concrete historical context of Augustine's day – the sack of Rome and the refugees finding their way to North Africa; see ‘The Inspiration for Augustine's De Civitate Dei’, Augustinian Studies 10 (1979), pp. 75–9.
81 Adam, ‘Das Fortwirken des Manichaismus’, pp. 16–25; Cilleruelo, ‘La oculta presencia’, pp. 491–509; Frend, ‘Gnostic–Manichaean Tradition’, p. 26.
82 As noted by van Oort, ‘Civitas dei–terrena civitas’, p. 165. Frend writes: ‘Finally, the “two cities” into which mankind would become divided, were not merely “Types” as described by Tychonius, but in Augustine's hands they become entities peopled by good and evil elements, while the Kingdom of the Devil was portrayed as a place of smoky, noxious darkness, reminiscent of the Manichee's Hell’; ‘Gnostic–Manichaean Tradition’, p. 26.
83 Jerusalem and Babylon, pp. 351–2.
84 ‘Civitas dei–terrena civitas’, pp. 166–8.
85 ‘Manichaeism: Its Sources and Influences’, p. 47.
86 E.g. see ‘New Light on Christian Gnosis’, p. 38; ‘Young Augustine's Knowledge’, p. 442, n. 2.
87 Rudolph, Gnosis, p. 370; Steinhauser, Kenneth B., ‘Creation in the Image of God According to Augustine's Confessions’, Patristic and Byzantine Review 7 (1988), pp. 199–204Google Scholar.
88 E.g. Koenen writes: ‘Without Augustine's being aware of it, his nihil becomes an aliquid and assumes the negative qualities of the Manichaean hyle’; ‘Augustine and Manichaeism in Light of the Cologne Mani Codex’, p. 159.
89 E.g. Edwin Lee: ‘Therefore, in total, we have shown a threefold influence of the Manichaean notion of the Good in Augustine's development of the doctrine of predestination: the context of summum bonum, the framework in ordo, and the deterministic factor exercised by consuetudo and concupiscentia’; ‘Augustine, Manichaeism, and the Good’, p. 204. Gerard O'Daly: ‘Manichaean hierarchies will have reinforced his assumption that the universe is hierarchical’; ‘Hierarchies in Augustine's Thought’, in F. X. Martin and J. A. Richmond (eds.), From Augustine to Erugina: Essays on Neoplatonism and Christianity in Honor of John O'Meara (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1991), p. 151.
90 Frend: ‘But, replied Augustine [to Julian], the justice of God was not the justice of humankind, God allowed the human race to be visited by his wrath. Disease, demons, catastrophes against which people were helpless were all around us. Thus had argued the Manichees also’; Rise of Christianity, p. 679.
91 Lamberigts: ‘It should also be recognized that in both Mani and Augustine the human or, better, earthly essence of Christ is at least problematic’; ‘Was Augustine a Manichaean?’, p. 136; see also van Oort, “Young Augustine's Knowledge’, p. 442, n. 2.
92 Coyle, ‘What did Augustine Know?’, p. 54.
93 E.g. Coyle argues that Augustine's use of ‘Christ as physician’ is paralleled in Manichaeism: ibid.
94 Already in the 1950s, P. J. de Menasce had argued that most scholars miss the residual Manichaean spirituality in the Christian Augustine; ‘Augustin Manicheen’, in Freundesgabe für Ernst Curtius zum 14, April 1956 (Berne: Franke, 1956), pp. 79–93.
95 Van Oort, ‘Manichaeism: Its Sources and Influences’, p. 47. He makes the same claim in ‘New Light on Christian Gnosis’, pp. 38–9; also in ‘Augustinus en het manicheïsme’, pp. 278–9.
96 Lee, Augustine, Manichaeism, and the Good (New York: Lang, 1999), p. xi. This volume represents the revised publication of his dissertation cited above.
97 I am, of course, borrowing the now-famous term from Samuel Sandmel's article ‘Parallelomania’, JBL 81 (1962), pp. 1–13.
98 E.g. while (as noted above) many scholars attribute a significant degree of Manichaean influence to Augustine's doctrine of concupiscence, Verschoren suggests that the similarities are due to a common source – namely Paul; see ‘Appearance of the Concept Concupiscentia’, p. 240. However, neither Verschoren nor those who argue for crypto-Manichaeism at this point offer anything like an in-depth methodological discussion on how to assess these complex questions. As we have noted above, van Oort appears to have changed his mind on this matter, yet nowhere does he provide a detailed discussion of what factors led to his new emphasis on the crypto-Manichaeism conclusion.
99 Among those Augustine scholars who have suggested this sort of nuanced approach to the crypto-Manichaean question see Coyle, ‘Legacy’, p. 20; Lee, ‘Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good’, pp. 210–11.
100 We know of the debate from Augustine's Against Fortunatus; see also Augustine, Retractions 1. 15; Possidius, Life of Augustine, 6. For several helpful introductions and/or insightful interpretations of the debate see Malcom E. Alflatt, ‘The Development of the Idea of Involuntary Sin in St. Augustine’, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 20 (1974), pp. 113–34; Coyle, ‘Fortunatum Manicheum, Acta contra’, in Augustine through the Ages, pp. 371–2; Decret, Aspects du Manicheisme dans l'Afrique Romaine, esp. pp. 40–5; Richard Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995), pp. 93–6; J. van Oort, ‘Heeding and Hiding their Particular Knowledge? An Analysis of Augustine's Dispute with Fortunatus’, in T. Fuhrer (ed.), Die christlich-philosophischen Diskurse der Spätantike (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2008), pp. 113–21. Here, I am also indebted to the work of Jason BeDuhn, particularly to an unpublished paper which he graciously made available to me: ‘Did Augustine Win his Debate with Fortunatus?’, originally read at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (Nashville) for the Manichaean Studies Group (forthcoming in a festschrift for J. van Oort). BeDuhn is currently in the process of developing his thought on (among other things) the lasting Manichaean influence upon Augustine in what will be a ground-breaking trilogy of books: Augustine's Manichaean Odyssey: Conversion and Apostasy in the Late 4th Century; Augustine's Manichaean Dilemma: Making a Catholic Self in Late Fourth Century Africa; and Augustine's Manichaean Shadow.
101 BeDuhn, ‘Did Augustine Win?’, p. 3.
102 Though, even here we must remember that the debate was largely staged and was anything but a fairly and impartially conducted affair. See e.g. Lim, Public Disputation, Power, pp. 93–6.
103 Against Fortunatus 36.
104 That is, Augustine's God is no less constrained to give humans free will so that they may be justly punished, than the Manichaean God is constrained to respond to the assault of the evil kingdom by sending part of himself – and thus human beings – into a world of suffering. In both cases, God is under constraint and is ultimately responsible for human suffering.
105 BeDuhn, ‘Did Augustine Win?’, pp. 3–4.
106 See Against Fortunatus 16 and Fortunatus’ exegesis of Eph 2:1–18.
107 Paula Fredriksen concurs: ‘Though he lost the debate, Fortunatus apparently touched a nerve: from this point onward, Augustine proceeds against the Manichaean Paul by arguing exegetically’; ‘Beyond the Body/Soul Dichotomy: Augustine against the Manichees and the Pelagians’, Recherches Augustiniennes 23 (1988), p. 89.
108 Against Fortunatus 22; cited in Alflatt, ‘Involuntary Sin’, p. 129. See Bammel, ‘Augustine, Origen and Exegesis of Paul’, p. 349.
109 BeDuhn, ‘Did Augustine Win?’, pp. 7–8. Bammel made a similar observation over a decade ago; see ‘Augustine, Origen and Exegesis of Paul’, pp. 349–50. Josef Lössl notes that Augustine's use of Romans 7:18–19 and Galatians 5:17 likewise parallels that found in the Manichaean Letter to Menoch; see ‘Augustine on Predestination: Consequences for the Reception’, Augustiniana 52 (2002), p. 265.
110 A similar case can be seen in the attempt of sixth-century Origenists to distance themselves and even counter the Manichaean influence in the Eastern Empire. For discussion see Istvan Perczel, ‘A Philosophical Myth in the Service of Christian Apologetics? Manichees and Origenists in the Sixth Century’, in Yossef Schwartz and Volkhard Krech (eds), Religious Apologetics – Philosophical Argumentation (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004), pp. 205–36.
111 Thus, in certain respects, Gilles Quispel (review of Ries et al., Epistole Paoline, p. 404) may not be far off when he writes: ‘Mani was always in Augustine's mind, consciously as his enemy, unconsciously as his twin’. An earlier version of this article was read at the 2004 annual meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (San Antonio, TX). My thanks go to Jason BeDuhn, Jim Beilby, Justin Daeley and Julie Dahlof for comments on earlier drafts.
