ŠĀBUHRAGĀN (Šāpurāḵān, Šāburāḵān, Šāburḵān), one of the books written by Mani (216-274/7 CE), founder of the Manichean religion, in which he summarized his teaching systematically. The title is to be translated as “dedicated to Šābuhr” (Kessler, 1889, pp. 181-83). The historians in Arabic, Ebn Nadim (936-95) and Biruni (973-1048), cite this book in their lists of Mani’s canonical scriptures. According to them, this work is the only one Mani wrote in the Middle Persian language. However, W. Sundermann concluded from the analysis of the Middle Persian hymn cycle Gōwišn i griw zindag “Speech of/about the Living Soul” that Mani might have written this cycle and other works in Middle Persian (1985, p. 648). M. Boyce characterizes the style of the Šābuhragān as “remarkably awkward and heavy,” which results from the fact that Middle Persian written prose was still in its infancy in the 3rd century CE. On the other hand, M. Boyce (1983, pp. 1196-97) stated on the basis of the style that it would be doubtful whether Mani himself wrote the Middle Persian version of the work. She guessed that Mani wrote this book in Aramaic and translated it into Middle Persian.

Another discussion point is whether Mani wrote Šābuhragān in Manichean script or in Pahlavi. On the one side, one would suggest that he introduced not only his religious system but also his special script. Otherwise, if one accepts that the Manichean script was not invented by Mani himself but was in fact Palmyrene script (Durkin-Meisterernst, 2000, p. 161), then he had no reason to use this script, which was not familiar to the Sasanian court. Therefore the Pahlavi script must have been used.

Arabic sources. Yaʿq˚ubi (second half of the 9th century), Šahrastāni (d. 1153), and Ebn al-Mortażā (d. 1139), in their essays on Mani and his teaching, summarized the explanation of the Realm of the Light and its sovereign and the succession of the prophets, of whom Mani regarded himself as the completion and the seal. According to the Arab historians, Mani dedicated this book to the Sasanian king Šābuhr I (r. 241-72), son of Ardašir I (r. 224-41). The hagiographic record of Ebn Nadim connects the first public appearance of Mani with the coronation of Šābuhr. Irrespective of the difficulties in determining the date of Šābuhr’s coronation, presumably on 12 April 240, it took place a few years before Mani wrote Šābuhragān, the text of the Cologne Mani Codex, and the Middle Iranian texts reporting on his journeys to various countries of the Roman Empire and to India. A certain Firuz, brother of Šābuhr I, seems to have arranged Mani’s audience with Šābuhr I. According to the studies by W. Sundermann, this took place in 242, when Mani was 26 years old. Unfortunately one cannot find any indication that the Šābuhragān was presented to Šābuhr I at this event. We can assume that the purpose of the text was to introduce to the Sasanian ruler Mani, as the final prophet, and his religious system (Sundermann, 1990; 1993, pp. 44-45). Yaʿq˚ubi (Taʾriḵ [repr., 1969] I, p. 181) reports on Mani’s missionary success with Šābuhr and gives a short survey on his writings. (Houtsma’s translation of the description of the world is corrected in Henning, 1936.)

The historians in Arabic excerpted or paraphrased whole passages from the Šābuhragān. Ebn Nadim mentions three chapters (Fehrest, tr. Dodge, II, pp. 797-98): “Al-Shāburqān, which includes a section called Dissolution of the Hearers, a second section called Dissolution of the Elect, and a third section called Dissolution of the Transgressors.” The chapter “What the State of Future Life Will Be after the Disappearance of the World, with a Description of Heaven and Hell” is regarded as a quotation from Šābuhragān, without being indicated as such. Biruni refers to Šābuhragān when he gives the dates of Mani’s early life: “Mani was born in a village called Mardinu on the upper canal of Kuthā, according to his own statement in his book Shāburḵān, in the chapter on the coming of the prophet, in the year 527 of the era of the Babylonian astronomers, i.e., the Æra Alexandri, in the 4th year of the king Adharbān. He received the first divine revelation in his thirteenth year, Anno Astronomorum Babyloniœ 539, in the 2nd year of Ardashir, the King of Kings” (Āṯār, tr. Sachau [repr., Frankfurt am Main, 1984], p. 190).

Biruni continues: “Wisdom and deeds have always from time to time been brought to mankind by the messengers of God. So in one age they have been brought by the messenger, called Buddha, to India, in another by Zarādusht to Persia, in another by Jesus to the West. Thereupon this revelation has come down, this prophecy in this last age through me, Mani, messenger of the God of truth of Babylonia.” The reading “wisdom and deeds” (al-ḥekma wa’l- aʿmāl) was emended by M. Tardieu (1981) to “wisdom and knowledge” based on Šahrastāni: “the first person to whom God gave knowledge and wisdom (al-ʿelm wa’l-ḥekma) was Adam.” The difference in readings is explained as a manuscript error; Biruni has aʿmāl (pl., metathesis from ʿelm to ʿamal and further to aʿmāl) compared with ʿelm written by Šahrastāni. The formula “wisdom and knowledge” (Mid. Pers. xrd ʾwd dʾnyšn xrad ud dānišn) is used four times at the beginning of the Šābuhragān (MacKenzie, 1979, lines 18-21; MacKenzie, 1980, line 45). It is true that the formula “wisdom and deeds” (whyh˚ ʾwd kyrdgʾn wihih ud kirdagān) occurs at least once, in a text formerly regarded as belonging to the Šābuhragān (M 5794/I/c/2 + T II D 126; Mir. Man. II, pp. 295-97; Sundermann, 1996, p. 21); it also contains, some lines further on, the formula “wisdom and knowledge.”

Fragments of the Middle Persian text. Fragments from five different manuscripts with parts of the Middle Persian Šābuhragān are known at present. The first two can be identified with certainty by headers and parallel texts: (1) M 470, etc. (eschatology), (2) M 49, etc. (eschatology and the early appearance of Mani). The three following manscripts have only been identified on the basis of common terminology: (3) M 98/I/, M 99/I/, (4) M 7980, and (5) M 506.

These fragments belong to the manuscripts unearthed in the Turfan oasis at the beginning of the 20th century (see TURFAN EXPEDITIONS), F. W. K. Müller identified them by their heading šʾbwhrgʾn Šābuhragān. Text identical to Ebn Nadim’s quotation of the eschatological part of Šābuhragān was identified by him in the Turfan manuscript fragment M 470 (1904, pp. 20-22). He published the first six fragments containing parts of Šābuhragān in Middle Persian. M 475, M 477, M 482, and M 472 show the complete title of Šābuhragān in their headlines: dw bwn ʿy šʾbwhrgʾn (M 482/I/v/Ü/ + M 472/I/r/Ü/) “The two principles of the Šābuhragān.” Their sequence could be reconstructed by imprints in mirror script of the preceding and following pages. The original place of M 470 and M 473 could not be ascertained. Their text includes a quotation of Matt. 25:31-46 concerning the Last Judgement and also a description of the Final Fire that follows after it, as well as the text known from Ebn Nadim’s parallel. The description of the coming of the end of the world is taken from the apocalyptic prophecies in the Christian Gospels (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21; Boyce, 1975, pp. 76-77).

C. Salemann transcribed the six fragments (M 470, M 473a-c, M 475, M 477, M 482, M 472) in Hebrew script. M. Boyce published a running transliteration in the following order: M 473, M 475, M 477, M 482, M 472, M 470 (1975, text z). She moved M 473 from the end to the beginning of the text, and she took into account the new order of the joined fragments M 473a and M 473b, as discovered by A. Ghilain (1946).

A remarkable characteristic of Šābuhragān is that it uses an extraordinary nomenclature. Most representative is that Christ is not called Jesus but Xradešahr (yazad), which means “(God of the) Realm of Wisdom”. His function in Šābuhragān as Jesus the Splendor, the origin of the Nous, is discussed several times. The function as deliverer of the redeeming wisdom and knowledge belongs to the tasks of the Nous, but the Judge is Jesus himself. It is the same case with Adam, the First Man, who has the name nwxwyr Noxwir (see also Colditz, 2005).

D. N. MacKenzie presented in two articles (1979, 1980) a comprehensive study of the fragments then known and some others, identified by M. Boyce and himself with the help of W. Sundermann. He reconstructed 426 legible lines on 8 folios (with 24 lines on each page), which formed one quire for binding. This is published in the first article as a nearly complete running text. The second article published one other sheet, which was the outer sheet of the same quire, plus a fragmentary sheet also belonging to that quire and some more fragments. The latter are edited in the order of the M-numbers, because it was not possible to reconstruct their original sequence: fa = M 470 b, fb = M 487, fc = M 497a, fd = M 510a, fe = 510b, fg = M 510c, fh = M 537c, fj = M 542a, fk = M 1502, fl = M 1508, fm = M 8256. The sheets A-H form the first part of the quire. The sheets J-Q form the second part. A, B, C, and E are double sheets; their second sides are called, M, O, P, and Q. K, L, and N are missing. This is the recent succession: A: M 519/I/ + M 473/I/, B: M 475a/I/, C: m 477, D: M 482 + M 477b, E: M 472/I/ + M 487b (1), F: M 535 + M 536 + M 487b (2), F: M 470a + M 497b, H: M 505a + M 542b/I/ + M 1745 + M 470c, J: M 505b + M 542b/II/ + M 475c, M: M472/II/, O: M 477/II/, P: M 475/II/ + M 475 b, Q: M 519/II + M 473/II/. The small remainder of the preceding quire consists of a: M 537a/I/ + M 473c, b: M 537b, and q: M 537a/II/. The small remnant of the text of this quire contains the end of the Great War with the final victory of the light forces. The following quire contains the beginning of the Judgement of Christ.

W. Sundermann (1981, p. 92) identified the fragment M 805a + M 2070 + M 270b/r/1-16/ as a parallel to page J = M 505b + /r/21-v/11/of the Šābuhragān published by MacKenzie. The fragments M 49, M 270b, M 464a, M 805a, M 2070, M 3414, M 6810, and M 6812 (all published in Sundermann, 1981, texts 5.1-5.6) also belong to this manuscript. Of these, M 49/I/ has a close relation to M 805a. Therefore one can affirm that these fragments are parts of a second manuscript of the Šābuhragān, containing parallel and unique text. Because of the usage of the first person singular, one could assume that Mani wrote this record himself. W. Sundermann surmises that such text may come from the chapter “Of the coming of the prophet” (majiʾ al-rasul) quoted by Biruni (Āṯār, pp. 118, 207-8; tr. Sachau p. 121). It contains mainly autobiographical records of the beginning of Mani’s career as a prophet. It corresponds to Kephalaia [Keph.] 1 “Concerning the Ad[vent] of the Apostle,” (Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, p. 15.22-24) and the Cologne Mani Codex. It relates Mani’s first appearance in front of his family to teach them about the new knowledge he learned from the Light twin (nrjmyg Narǰamig; M 49), his participation in the redeeming of Light and his origin in Babel (M 3414), and his travels through Babylonia, Bēṯ ʿArḇāyē, and the Roman Empire (M 464a). The fragments M 805a, M 2070 + M 270b, which have a text parallel to that in M 475c + (MacKenzie, 1979, text J) contain eschatological details referring to (1) the sinners, (2) those people who do not enter the circle of the Electi but will find salvation, and (3) the punishment of the devils and the evil forces of darkness. The comparison of both manuscripts shows great consistency, which proves the conscientious tradition of this text. M 6812 is very small, with traces of a few words, but one can read nqxwyr and reconstruct Ohrmezd and Ahrmen. M 6810 is also badly damaged. W. Sundermann supposes that the awakening instruction of Adam by Jesus took place in this text, which is mentioned in M 519 + M 473 I (MacKenzie, 1979, text A).

Although there is no indication in headlines or from quotations, several cosmogonic fragments belonging to one manuscript and published in Mir. Man. I (T III 260 = M 7980-M 7984) have a close connection to the identified Šābuhragān texts (Henning, 1933, p. 250; Schaeder, 1935, p. 579). According to Boyce (1960, p. 132) and Sundermann (1979, p. 97, n. 10), one can say there is a great probability that these fragments belong to the Šābuhragān. This is supported by the usage of the names quoted above for Jesus and Adam, and of those for other gods, and also by the style of the Middle Persian. W. B. Henning pointed out that the fragments M 98/I/ and M 99/I/ (published in Müller, 1904, pp. 34-43) could also belong to the same book as the cosmogonic fragments quoted above. He stated that M 98/I/ and M 99/I/ precede the others. The pages M 98/I/ and M 99/II/ contain Parthian hymns. So we have here a manuscript collection of several different literary types of texts (the so-called Sammelhandschriften)—a usage which is very common in the Manichean Turfan materials. Possibly these books were arranged for liturgical use. The header of M 98/I/v-r/ and M 99/I/v-r/ forms a running text, which is interpreted as part of a benediction of the scribe, as sometimes occurs in colophons. There is a point of discussion in the reading of the beginning of M 99/I/v as (ʾ)w, where actually ʾd is written (cf. Yoshida, 1993, p. 132.)

M. Hutter (1992) published a concise new edition of both groups of manuscripts, including M 506, which already was published by W. Sundermann (1973, pp. 68-69; see rev., Lieu, 1998, p. 107). M 98/I/ and M 99/I/ contain 100 lines of continuous, well-preserved text, which describes parts of the Second creation of the 10 skies and 8 earths by Mihryazad, who is the Living Spirit.

The fragments M 7980-M 7984 represent possibly a fourth manuscript of the Šābuhragān. M 506 contains parallel text which provides some lines of text missing between M 7980 II and M 7981 II in a fifth handwriting. M 7980-M 7984 consist of 4 double sheets and one single leaf (M 7982). It is in a very small script written in two columns with 34 lines. The headlines characterize the texts as a discourse (Mid. Pers. gwyšn gōwišn) on several topics. This was not the usual practice in the eschatological manuscripts, where the headlines quote the title of the whole book. The order of the fragments can be reconstructed as follows: M 7984 II/r/i-v/ii/4/ “discourse on the substantial” (presumably the text of M 98/I/ and M 99/I/ belongs to the same chapter); M 7984 II/v/ii/9-34/ + M 7981I + M 7980 I/r/i/1-v/i/14/ “discourse on god Narisah”; one page is missing after M 7984 II, containing the seduction of the male archons; M 7980 I/v/ii/ + M 7980 II/r/ + /v/ + M 506 + M 7981 II/r/ + /v/ “discourse on the [sun’s] *stations <and> the days”; M 7984 I/r/i/1-ii/28/ “discourse on the diminution of day <and> night”; M 7984 I/r/ii/33-v/ii/ + M 7982/r/ + /v/ M 7983 I/r/ + /v/ “discourse on Gēhmurd and Murdiyānag”; and M 7983 II/r/ + /v/ “discourse on the soul and the body.” The double sheets belong to two following quires. The first consists of M 7984, M 7981, and M 7980. M 7984 was the outer sheet. Because usually more than four folios form one quire, one has to assume that more double sheets are missing between M 7980/I/ and M 7980/II/, except for the double sheet after M 7984/II/. M 7982 belongs to the text quire, followed immediately by M 7983/I/. All three fragments M 7984/I/, M 7982, and M 7983 belong to the chapter on Gēhmurd and Murdiyānag without any break. That is why one can reconstruct their running order. Noteworthy is the condition of M 7982/r/, M 7983/I/v/ and M 7983/II/v/, where are preserved traces of imprints on the outer margin and also a fold mark. Unfortunately one cannot identify what text is preserved in mirror script. Such traces can be due to conditions after the destruction of the Manichean library.

This cosmological text concerns the final part of the creation of the cosmic world and the evocation of the Third Messenger = Rōšnšahr and Jesus/Nous = Xradešahr. The third divinity of the Third evocation, the Maiden of Light, is not mentioned in the preserved text. Next it shows how, through the seduction of the male demons, the plants begin to grow and, through the seduction of the female demons, animals appear on earth. Then comes the building of the prison for the demons and the New Paradise, and an account of how the five Light Elements will be redeemed. There follows a chapter on the cycle of the sun <and> the days which explains the orbit of the sun and its function on earth. W. B. Henning demonstrated that this part was taken from an Aramaic version of the Book of Enoch, but one revised at the beginning of the 7th century in connection with the schism of the Dināvariya in Samarqand (Mir. Man. I, p. 189, n. 1; Henning, 1934, pp. 32-35; Sundermann, 1986b, p. 316; Tubach, 1988 and 1992). The next chapter deals with the creation of the first man and the first woman (Gēhmurd and Murdiyānag) by the demon Āz. The final chapter of the preserved manuscript concerns human life on earth. Between this last page and the preceding one there are some sheets lacking; the missing parts deal with the mission of Jesus, who wakes Adam, and the seduction of Adam by Eve, etc., as Henning noticed (Mir. Man. I, p. 201, n. 3). About the cosmogonic mythological tradition (see COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY iii) we are also informed by many sources, such as Augustine’s Epistula fundamenti, Theodor bar Khonai’s (see BAR KŌNAY) “On Māni’s teachings concerning the beginning of the world,” the Fehrest of Ebn Nadim, and hymns and sermons composed by the Manicheans themselves. So we can compare and complete the details. It is under discussion whether M 299a (Henning, 1934, pp. 27-28) is part of Šābuhragān (Sundermann, 1986b, p. 315). This fragment says that the Great Nous, here called Holy Spirit, from time to time sends prophets into various regions, mentioning Šēm, Sēm, Enōš, Nikotheos ... and Henoch. Certainly the Šābuhragān as known by quotations from Biruni mentions another chain of prophets: Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, and Mani.

Translations into Parthian. There are some Parthian texts which seem to be paraphrasing translations of the Šābuhragān: M 183 + M 3404 (Sundermann, 1973, pp. 61-64, text 11) describes the Realm of Light and the Realm of Darkness and the creation of sun and moon by the Living Spirit. This text shows clear agreements with M 98. According to W. Sundermann the headline should now be reconstructed as dw bwn “two principles” (Sundermann, 1986a, p. 84, n. 183, misprinted as M 182; Hutter, 1992, p. 144, n. 30). The parallel text M 354 fills some gaps and provides two more lines (Sundermann, 1973, pp. 62-64).

M 5651 contains a small part of an autobiographical account in which Mani refers to the Light Twin (Sundermann, 1981, pp. 98-99, text 6). But there is no headline (as mentioned in Hutter, 1992, p. 145). Rather, this headline is preserved in M 728/r/, a single sheet with some kind of index of contents, comprising items numbered from “ninth” to “thirty-seventh” and with the end of the preceding eighth part. W. Sundermann supposes cautiously that it could belong to a book with contents similar to those of Šābuhragān (Hutter, 1992, p. 145).

The fragments M 5794 (T II D 126), M 9, and M 8251 (T III D 278) cited by A. Adam as belonging to the contents, contain quotations of several works written by Mani but do not belong to Šābuhragān.

The spread of the Šābuhragān in the Eastern world. Recently a list of the holy scriptures by Mani was discovered by Y. Yoshida (2000, p. 91, letter B, l. 49). There the Šābuhragān (šʾpwxrkʾn, transliteration of the Mid. Pers. title in Sogdian script) is quoted together with other works which are to be read during the service. The Šābuhragān is known also from Turkish Manichean sources. In the Colophon to the Great Hymn to Mani it is mentioned as šahbwhrγan no[mu]γ (Clark, 1982, pp. 179.502, 190 (D 259, 1 = U 109/v/).

A. von Gabain (1964, p. 234) and W. B. Henning (Haloun and Henning, 1952, p. 210) connected a manuscript of two double sheets, plus the lost fragment *T II D 173d, with Šābuhragān. Parts of this text also had been interpreted as independent sermons on topics which have parallels in several hymns—Wilkens, 2000, no.88 (U 168 I [T II D 173{a,1}]), no.319 (U 168 II = T II D 173a,2), no.185 (U 169 I = T II D 173b,1), no.89 (U 169 II = T II D 173b,2).

In a later addition to another text, MIK III 198 (T II D 171), also considered as remnant of a Turkish version of Šābuhragān by von Gabain and Henning, the title of the book is mentioned as I˜ki Yiltiz Nom “Book of the Two Principles.” J. Wilkens (2000, no. 124) calls it “Leserkolophone” made by people who recited this text. He confirms that there is a relationship in content between both texts. Besides these large remnants of texts, L. Clark mentions TM 282 (= U 35) as part of this book. J. Wilkens (2000, no. 136) proves that there is a relationship between U 35/v/ and U 168/r/, cited above. According to Wilkens (2000, no.188) U 246a and b belong also to the I˜ki Yiltiz Nom because of their headline. U 33 contains a mythological detail comparable with the Middle Persian cosmogonic fragment M 7980 (Wilkens, 2000, no. 181, fn. 553).

The other book, published by Le Coq (1911) and identified with the Chinese Traité (Chavannes and Pelliot, 1913), has now been identified as a part of the Turkish version of the Parthian “Sermon of the Light-Nous” (Klimkeit and Schmidt-Glintzer, 1984). So one should be cautious in proposing that the header dw bwn was used only for Šābuhragān.

The title “Book of the Two Principles” is cited in Chinese sources as having been presented to the Empress Wu by a Mihr-Ormezd (Hutter, 1992, p. 146). But it is not known which book is meant. The title “Book of the Two Principles and the Three Epoches” could also mean the “Compendium of the doctrines and styles of the teaching of Mani, the Buddha of Light,” because both formulas are often mentioned in it. Also mentioned is a so-called “Table of the Great Two Principles,” presumably the Ardahang (see ARZANG), whatever it was. The Šābuhragān is not mentioned in the “Compendium of the doctrines and styles of the teaching of Mani.” The list there seems to be dependent on a Western source (Haloun and Henning, 1953, pp. 204-11).

The use of “two principles” in the Chinese title, which originally (as Middle Persian dw bwn) indicated the eschatological chapters of Šābuhragān, may show the further development of this term, It represents the name of the religion itself in the Eastern world. Thus one cannot conclude that every book bearing this title in later times contains translations from, or paraphrases of, Šābuhragān.

The Manichean mythos, as it was outlined in Šābuhragān, was treated in other books by Mani himself (e.g., the “Book of the Giants”; see GIANTS, THE BOOK OF) and by his disciples and later generations of believers in their tractates and hymns.

The spread of the Šābuhragān in the Western world. The spread of Šābuhragān in the Roman Empire cannot be taken for granted. As mentioned above, it is not named in the lists of canonical writings: introduction to the Kephalaia and Keph. 148 (Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, p. 5; Funk, 1999, p. 355; Gardner, 1995, p. 15); the homilies (Polotsky, 1934, p. 25.2-6); Psalm 241 (Allberry, 1938, pp. 46-47; Wurst, 1996, p. 115). This omission was already noted by C. Schmidt and H. J. Polotsky (1933, p. 41); they confirmed this fact also with reference to the Greek and Latin sources for Manicheism.

The close relationship between the eschatological part of the Šābuhragān and the Coptic homily “The Sermon on the Great War” makes it likely that the author of the homily knew and used the Šābuhragān. But there remains the problem whether Kustaios used the Middle Persian version or a Syriac version of it, as P. Alfaric (1919, p. 49) and C. Colpe (1954, pp. 132-33) supposed, or another text of similar content. (Pedersen, 1993, pp. 149-52). Likewise there is no record and no proof for whether Šābuhragān was translated into Syriac later on or translated into Arabic directly from Middle Persian (Colpe, 1954, pp. 123-24, 132). L. Koenen (1986) relates the apocalyptic sources of the Šābuhragān to Jewish-Christian and Egyptian ideas. The biographical details in the introduction of Kephalaia and the Cologne Mani Codex do not necessarily derive from Šābuhragān (Sundermann, 1986a, pp. 83-85).


A. Adam, ed., Texte zum Manichäismus, Berlin, 1969, pp. 5-8.

A. Afšār Širāzi, Motun-e ʿarabi va fārsi dar bāre-ye Māni va mānaviyat, Tehran, 1335 Š./1956, pp. 204, 244.

P. Alfaric , Les écritures manichéennes II: Étude analytique, Paris, 1919.

C. R. C. Allberry, ed., A Manichaean Psalm Book Part II, Stuttgart, 1938.

F. C. Andreas and W. B. Henning, Mir. Man. I, pp. 175-222; II, pp. 306-8.

J. P. Asmussen, Manichaean Literature, Persian Heritage Series 22, Delmar, N.Y., 1975, pp. 10, 104-6.

Biruni, Āṯār, repr. Frankfurt am Main, 1984.

A. Böhlig, Die Gnosis, 3. Bd.: Der Manichäismus, unter Mitwirkung von Jes Peter Asmussen, Zürich and München, 1980, pp. 155, 234-39.

M. Boyce, A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichaean Script in the German Turfan Collection, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforchung: Veröffentlichung Nr. 45, Berlin, 1960, pp. 8-9 sub M 98 and M 99; 31 sub M 470; 36 sub M 506; 132 sub M 7980 = T III 260.

Idem, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian: Texts with Notes, Acta Iranica 9, Leiden, Tehran, and Liège, 1975, pp. 31-32 (text b), 60-76 (text y), 76-81 (text z).

Idem, “Manichaean Middle Persian Writings,” Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, 1983, pp. 1196-1204.

E. Chavannes and P. Pelliot, “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine,” JA, 1911, pp. 499-617; 1913, pp. 99-199, 261-392.

L. Clark, “The Manichean Turkic Pothi-Book,” Altorientalische Forschungen 9, 1982, pp. 145-218.

I. Colditz, “Zur Adaption zoroastrischer Terminologie in Manis Šābuhragān,” in Languages of Iran: Past and Present: Iranian Studies in Memoriam David Neil MacKenzie, Wiesbaden, 2005, pp. 17-26.

C. Colpe, Der Manichäismus in der arabischen Überlieferung, Göttingen, 1954.

D. Durkin-Meisterernst, “Erfand Mani die manichäische Schrift?” in Studia Manichaica: IV. Internationaler Kongreb zum Manichäismus, ed. R. E. Emmerick, W. Sundermann, and P. Zieme, Berlin, 2000, pp. 161-78.

G. Flügel, Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Manichäismus. Aus dem Fihrist des ... an-Nadim, Leipzig, 1862, pp. 72, 102.

Wolf-Peter Funk, ed., Kephalaia I: 2. Hälfte, Lieferung 13/14, Stuttgart, 1999.

A. von Gabain, “Die alttürkische Literatur,” in Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta II, ed. L. Bazin et al., Wiesbaden, 1964, pp. 211-43.

I. Gardner, The Kephalaia of the Teacher: The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in Translations with Commentary, Leiden, New York, and Köln, 1995.

A. Ghilain, ”Un feuillet Manichéen reconstitué,” Le Muséon 59, 1946, pp. 539-40.

Th. Haarbrücker, Abu-ʾl-Fathʿ Muhʿammad asch-Schahrastāni’s Religionspartheien und Philosophen-Schulen, 1. Part, Halle, 1850, pp. 285-91.

G. Haloun and W.B. Henning, “The Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani, the Buddha of Light,” Asia Major 3, 1953, pp. 184-212.

W. B. Henning, “Neue Quellen zum Studium des Manichäismus,” Forschungen und Fortschritte 9, 1933, pp. 250-51.

Idem, rev. of Jackson, 1932, in OLZ, 1934, pp. 751 f.

Idem, “Ein manichäisches Henochbuch,” SbPAW, Berlin, 1934, pp. 27-35, Idem, “Zwei Fehler in der arabisch-manichäischen Überlieferung,” Orientalia, N.S. 5, 1936, pp. 86-87.

M. Hutter, “Das Erlösungsgeschehen im manichäisch-iranischen Mythos: Motiv- und traditionsgeschichtliche Analysen,” in Das manichäische Urdrama des Lichtes, ed. K. M. Woschitz et al., Wien, 1989, pp. 153-236.

Idem, Manis kosmogonische Šābuhragān-Texte: Edition, Kommentar und literaturgeschichtliche Einordnung der manichäisch-mittelpersischen Handschriften M 98/99 I und M 7980-7984, Wiesbaden, 1992.

A. V. W. Jackson, “A Sketch of the Manichaean Doctrine Concerning the Future Life” JAOS 50, 1930, pp. 177-98.

K. Kessler, Mani. Forschungen über die manichäische Religion. Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte des Orients, 1. Band: Voruntersuchungen und Quellen, Berlin, 1889, pp. 180-91, 304-55.

H.-J. Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road: Gnostic Texts from Central Asia, San Francisco, 1993, pp. 224-35 (cosmogony), pp. 241-47 (eschatology).

H.-J. Klimkeit and H. Schmidt-Glintzer, “Die türkischen Parallelen zum chinesisch-manichäischen Traktat,” Zentralasiatische Studien 17, 1984, pp. 82-117.

L. Koenen, “Manichaean Apocalypticism at the Crossroads of Iranian, Egyptian, Jewish and Christian Thought,” in Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis. Atti del Simposio Internazionale , ed. L. Cirillo and A. Roselli, Cosenza, 1986, pp. 297-332.

A. von Le Coq, Türkische Manichaica aus Chotscho I, APAW Anhang, Abh. VI, Berlin, 1911.

N. C. Lieu, rev. of Hutter, 1992, in JRAS 8, 1998, pp. 106-9.

D. N. MacKenzie, “Mani’s Šābuhragān [I],” BSOAS 42/3, 1979, pp. 500-34; “II,” BSOAS 43/2, 1980, pp. 288-310, pls. I-XII; repr. of both articles in Iranica Diversa, ed. C. G. Cereti and L. Paul, Rome, 1999, I, pp. 83-153 (MI and MJ).

F. W. K. Müller, “Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo-Schrift aus Turfan, Chinesisch-Turkistan II. Teil,” APAW, Berlin, 1904, pp. 10-25, pp. 34-43, p. 50, pl. I.

Idem, “Eine Hermas-Stelle in manichäischer Version” SbPAW, Berlin, 1905, p. 1081; repr. in Sprachwissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der deutschen Turfan-Forschung, Berlin, 1971, pp. 124-30.

N. A. Pedersen, Studies in The Sermon on the Great War, Arhus, 1993.

H. J. Polotsky, ed., Manichäische Homilien, Stuttgart, 1934.

H. J. Polotsky and A. Böhlig, eds., Kephalaia I: 1. Hälfte, Stuttgart, 1940.

C. Salemann, Manichäische Studien 1, Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, 8. Sér., cl. Historico-Philologique, vol. 8, nr. 10, St. Petersburg, 1908, pp. 24-28, 34.

H. H. Schaeder, “Beiträge zur iranischen Sprachgeschichte,” Ungarische Jahrbücher 15, 1935, pp. 560-88.

C. Schmidt and H. J. Polotsky, “Ein Mani-Fund in Ägypten: Originalschriften des Mani und seiner Schüler,” SbPAW, Phil.-hist. Kl., 1933, pp. 4-90.

W. Sundermann, Mittelpersische und parthische kosomogonische und Parabeltexte der Manichäer, Berliner Turfantexte 4, Berlin, 1973, pp. 68-69 (Ms. 16).

Idem, “Namen von Göttern, Dämonen und Menschen in iranischen Versionen des manichäischen Mythos,” Altorientalische Forschungen 6, 1979, pp. 95-133.

Idem, Mitteliranische manichäische Texte kirchengeschichtlichen Inhalts, Berliner Turfantexte 11, Berlin, 1981, pp. 91-98 (texts 5.1-5.6), 98-99 (text 6).

Idem, “Der Gōwišn ī grīw zīndag-Zyklus,” in Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, Leiden, 1985, II, pp. 629-50.

Idem, “Studien zur kirchengeschichtlichen Literatur der iranischen Manichäer I,” Altorientalische Forschungen 13, 1986a, p. 76; “II,” Altorientalische Forschungen 13, 1986b, pp. 315-16; repr. in idem, Manichaica Iranica I, Rome, 2001, pp. 217-26.

Idem, “Shapur’s Coronation: the Evidence of the Cologne Mani Codex Reconsidered and Compared with Other Texts,” Bulletin of the Asia Institute, N.S. 4, 1990, pp. 295-99. Idem, “Cologne Mani Codex,” EIr. VI, 1993, pp. 43-46.

Idem, Iranian Manichaean Turfan Texts in Early Publications (1904-1934): Photo Edition, London, 1996.

M. Tardieu, “al-ḥikma wa-l-ʿilm dans une citation de Mani chez al-Biruni,” AION 41, 1981, pp. 477-81.

J. Tubach, “Spuren des astronomischen Henochbuches bei den Manichäern Mittelasiens,” in Nubia et Oriens Christianus. Festschrift für C. Detlef G. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. P. O. Schulz and R. Stempel, Köln, 1988, pp. 73-95.

Idem, “Mani und das 366-tägige Sonnenjahr,” Le Muséon 105, 1992, pp. 45-61.

D. Weber, ed., Iranian Manichaean Turfan Texts in Publications since 1934: Photo Edition, Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Suppl. Ser. 4, London, 2000.

J. Wilkens, Alttürkische Handschriften Teil 8: Manichäisch-türkische Texte der Berliner Turfansammlung, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland XIII/6, Stuttgart, 2000.

G. Wurst, Die Bema-Psalmen, Turnhout, 1996.

Y. Yoshida, “Middle Iranian and Old Turkish : Notes on Two Sets of Colophons or Scribbles Found in Manichaean Texts,” in Studies on the Inner Asian Languages 8, 1993, pp. 127-33.

Idem, “Sute wen kao shi (Studies in the Sogdian texts),” in Studies in the New Manichaean Texts Recovered from Turfan, Beijing, 2000, pp. 3-199.

P. Zieme, “A Turkish Text on the Manichaean Cosmogony,” Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale di studi “Manicheismo e Oriente Cristiano Antico,” Arcavacata di Rende – Amantea – 31 agosto – 5 settembre 1993, Manichaean Studies 3, ed. Luigi Cirillo and Alois van Tongerloo, Brepols, 1997, pp. 395-409.

(Christiane Reck)

Originally Published: January 1, 2000

Last Updated: March 15, 2010