1. Introduction

In the third century ce, Mani and his followers expanded his new revelation throughout Mesopotamia, westwards through Egypt and the Roman Empire, and eastwards through the Sasanian Empire and beyond. Mani boasted of his own writings as an advantage to the fledgling community, claiming to have written down his own revelations and encouraging his followers to write, copy, and translate his teachings.² It is clear that written texts were an important part of the early Manichaean communities’ identity and practice, as well as a target of their opponents.³ More generally, modern scholars tend to think of Manichaeism as a proto-typical ‘religion of the book’ and have given due attention to notions of textuality, scripture, or books in Manichaean discourse and anti-Manichaean polemics.⁴⬈#p1

We know very little about Mani’s own scribal practices, or the book culture of the religiously diverse Sasanian Mesopotamian milieu in which he was raised and began his mission. Yet over the past 120 years a number of Manichaean writings in a dozen languages have been discovered at disparate sites ranging from North Africa to central China, thus surviving, in part, a history of persecution and book-burnings under various regimes.⁵ Despite these troves of manuscripts, which total in the thousands, from immense papyrus books to mere fragments, the codicology of Manichaean manuscripts is still relatively undeveloped. In fact, there is essentially only one major study of Manichaean codicology, Zsuzsanna Gulácsi’s analysis of the illuminated manuscript fragments from Turfan. Although her focus is narrow, as only about one-twentieth of the extant fragments from Turfan are illuminated, her careful delineation of principles provides a foundation for the further study of Manichaean codices, especially in Central Asia.⁶ We are not aware of any comparative study of Manichaean manuscripts from the Mediterranean world. Furthermore, Manichaean book culture has been largely neglected in the otherwise lively academic debates about the history of the book in Late Antiquity, which are mostly based on Christian and Buddhist evidence. Yet Manichaean books are some of the earliest surviving witnesses of the codex format. Likewise, the still-nascent field of comparative manuscript studies would benefit greatly from the broad geographical distribution provided by the Manichaean evidence.⁷⬈#p2

In this chapter, we seek to establish the foundations for a comparative study of Manichaean manuscripts which integrates them into the broader study of ancient and medieval textual cultures. In so doing, we argue that the textual culture of the Manichaeans cannot be studied in isolation from the textual cultures with which they interacted, but also, and equally importantly, that it is past time for studies of those cultures, such as the early Christian one, to take the Manichaeans into account. In the first section of this chapter, we provide a survey of the surviving Manichaean manuscript corpora, which, uniquely, are evenly represented between the Mediterranean and Central Asia. Our emphasis is not on their content, but rather two aspects of their materiality: first, structural aspects, such as format and writing support; second, paratextual elements employed within this structure. As we describe the various surviving Manichaean texts, we compare them with non-Manichaean manuscripts from the same languages and regions, to evaluate any salient differences or exceptional qualities. Having outlined the evidence, in the second section, we compare these Manichaean texts across Eurasia in an effort to identify features shared over various linguistic cultures and geographic regions. One of these comparative features is structural (quires), three are paratextual (text-division strategies, running headers, and indices); all four of these features are salient parts of the overall construction and organization of a book. An additional goal of this second section is to highlight the importance of paratextual aspects for comparative manuscriptology, and make initial steps towards sketching a general history of the appearance and usage of the three paratextual features under discussion. Finally, in the third section, we discuss how the Manichaean corpora contribute to the debate about the ‘rise of the codex’ vis-à-vis the scroll, looking at both the Mediterranean and Central Asian evidence. Our results suggest that some distinctive aspects of Manichaean book culture found at either end of Afro-Eurasia go back to the scribal practices of the early community in Mesopotamia. More generally, this chapter attempts to chart an approach to the comparison of manuscript cultures through focusing on a transregional community.⬈#p3

2. The Manichaean Corpora

In this section we give an overview of the extant Manichaean textual corpora, focusing on the codicological characteristics of the surviving manuscript remains. We begin with the Syriac evidence, which, though from Egypt, is perhaps closest to the book culture of Mani and his first disciples in Mesopotamia; we then proceed roughly chronologically, and from the Mediterranean towards Central and East Asia. That ‘western’ texts happen to be older than the ‘eastern’ ones is in large part based on the random circumstances of their preservation and contemporary discovery. However, the former are largely found in Egypt, where the climate was conducive to survival; in contrast, no Iranian manuscripts from the Late Antique Mesopotamian heartland of Manichaeism, nor from Sasanian Iran proper, have survived. The extant texts from Turfan and Dunhuang, including translations into Iranian languages, Old Uighur, Chinese, and others, come from areas that were missionized later, in the early medieval period.⬈#p4

2.1 Syriac Fragments

The Syriac language and manuscript tradition has a special connection to the textual culture of the earliest Manichaean communities. Mani spoke a dialect of Aramaic close to Syriac, and used an Aramaic script closely related to the Palmyrene script. This script variety came to be used by the Manichaeans to write not only Aramaic, but also Iranian languages including Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian, and, in Turfan, Old Uighur as well—it has hence become known as the ‘Manichaean script’ and attributed to Mani himself, although there is no evidence that he actually invented it and the extent to which the Manichaean script was limited in use to Manichaean communities, at least in Late Antique Mesopotamia, is also unclear.⁸ In addition to Syriac authors such as Ephrem and Theodore bar Konai, who may preserve direct quotations of Manichaean texts in their original Syriac, there have survived a small number of extremely fragmentary manuscripts in Syriac (though there is not enough text preserved to assess dialectical variation) in Manichaean script from the Roman Empire. There are four groups of Manichaean Syriac manuscript fragments, all parchment. Nils Pedersen and John Moller Larsen, who have collected, re-edited, and thoroughly analyzed these, argues persuasively that they treat Manichaean topics. While their exact provenance is unknown, they were all apparently acquired from Egypt in the late 1800s and early 1900s.⬈#p5

These manuscripts are of great interest for the early history of Manichaean codicology, as they may have been composed in Egypt by Mesopotamian scribes, or brought there from the community’s Sasanian heartland.⁹ The Allberry Fragments (Cambridge University Library OR. 2252–2553), named after the first editor of the Manichaean Psalmbook, are fragmentary. According to their first editor, F.C. Burkitt, they are ‘from Middle Egypt, and appear to have been used to bind some ancient Coptic MSS.’¹⁰ The fact that they have writing on both sides suggests the codex format. The Ashmunain Fragment (BL OR. 6201 C(1)), reportedly from Middle Egypt as well, is also a parchment codex, apparently a miniature one.¹¹ The nine Berlin fragments (Berlin P 22364) are rather small, and difficult to reconstruct. According to conservator Myriam Krutzsch, they could be either from a small codex (albeit one with three columns) or a roll.¹² Pedersen notes that, based on their content, ‘it is almost certain that these fragments are Manichaean,’’ and therefore ‘it seems probable that they come from a codex.’¹³ There is so far no concrete reason to assume that the Manichaeans originally preferred the codex, especially in the earliest period of their missionary activity, as will be argued in the following section; but the fact that there is Syriac text on both sides, and apparently in the same hand, does suggest the codex format. The same cannot be said of the Oxyrhynchus fragments (Bodleian MSS. Syr. D.13(P) and D.14(P)), which have writing on both sides: the Syriac (on the recto) is apparently earlier, while the Greek (on the verso) is later.¹⁴ Although this feature of its codicology is not discussed by Pedersen, the writing of a different language and text on the blank verso of a sheet strongly suggests that the original format was the roll. Given that the Greek text is tentatively dated to the fourth century, the Syriac text may well go back to the earliest period of the Manichaean mission in Egypt. Finally, the Heidelberg Fragment (P.Heid.Syr. 1), has the same Syriac hand on both sides, and was thus likely a codex.¹⁵⬈#p6

In conclusion, all of the fragmentary Syriac Manichaean manuscripts are made of parchment; two are likely from codices, one is likely from a roll, and one might be from either a codex or a roll. This evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that the early Manichaeans used the roll format likely known to Mani from his Mesopotamian background. Some of these would have made their way to Egypt, perhaps in the context of early missionary activity there, where they were preserved with other late antique textual remains. By the fourth century, Manichaeans were also experimenting with the codex format, possibly in both Mesopotamia and Egypt.⬈#p7

2.2 Egypt

2.2.1 Kellis

The earliest securely dated Manichaean manuscripts are from Kellis (modern Ismant el-Kharab), an Upper Egyptian town in the Dakhleh Oasis, within the western desert.¹⁶ In Late Antiquity, Kellis had between 1,000 and 1,500 inhabitants, but was close to the larger oasis cities of Trimithis (modern Amheida) and Mothis (modern Mut el-Kharab), the nome capital. Excavations at Kellis in the 1980s and 1990s under the direction of Colin Hope revealed a number of manuscript remains in a private domestic context: Houses 1–3, for example, were the findspots for various writings in Coptic (in several dialects), Greek, and Syriac, many with specifically Manichaean themes, dating in large part to the second half of the fourth century. As a group, they attest to a robust community which apparently lived openly in this remote oasis town, without direct threat of persecution, as its members and associates, including a ‘teacher’ who might have been one of the Elect, traveled throughout Egypt.¹⁷⬈#p8

The evidence for Manichaean manuscripts at Kellis is striking in its diversity, not only in language but also in format and material. Alongside documents and private letters on papyrus, there are papyrus amulets, wooden tablets, and codices on both papyrus and wood. Indeed, because these remains were discovered in a known archaeological context, rather than an antiquities market, it is possible to appreciate how a single community’s patterns of manuscript usage could embrace a variety of forms and contexts; this fact has been largely ignored in studies of early Christian book history, which have focused on the most expensive manuscript productions, the codex and the roll, in developing a narrative of ‘triumph’ and ‘replacement’ rather than co-existence.¹⁸⬈#p9

The Kellis Manichaean evidence demonstrates the importance of copying and sharing texts within the community. Among the private letters associated with a large, multi-generational Manichaean family (including Makarios and his wife Maria), one, from Makarios to Maria, mentions that their child Piene is receiving instruction to be a reader (P.Kell.Copt. 25), and another that he is traveling to Alexandria with the ‘teacher,’ presumably a member of the Manichaean hierarchy (P.Kell.Copt. 29).¹⁹ In another letter (P.Kell.Copt. 19), Makarios encourages Matthaios, Piene’s older brother, to study a number of texts, including the Judgment of Peter the Apostle, the Great Prayers, the (Greek) Psalms, Sayings, and Prostrations, and further to ‘Write small selections now and then, more and more. Write a copy (typos) daily, because I need you to write some books here’ (P.Kell.Copt. 19.15–19, my translation). The letter to Matthaios suggests commonly known, authoritative titles of texts, of use for study and worship. Although none of them are specifically identifiable, another letter (P.Kell.Copt.120) from the same context, House 3, mentions the ‘Acts’ and the ‘Gospel,’ which might refer to the Acts of the Apostles (or the 5 apocryphal apostolic acts) and the Diatessaron, but more likely to Mani’s Living Gospel and narratives about the missionary efforts of his disciples.⬈#p10

The efforts of Piene and Matthaios in reading and writing reflect the strong literary culture of Manichaeans, even in a small oasis community such as Kellis, which is itself connected to the metropolis Alexandria through an in-group network in which the ‘great teacher’ must have played a central role. The surviving literary texts from Kellis confirm that Manichaean literary texts were kept there, in an intriguing variety of formats, lengths, and languages, including: two papyrus codices of Mani’s Letters, in Coptic (P.Kell.Copt. 53 and 54=11–83 and 84–93);²⁰ an apocryphal papyrus fragment in Greek related to the Acts of John (P.Kell.Gr. 97=94–110); two biblical papyrus fragments in Coptic: Romans 2:6–29 (P.Kell.Copt. 6=94–97) and Hebrews 12:4–13 (P.Kell.Copt. 9=98–100); a Kephalaia-like composition (P.Kell.Copt. 8=94–77); two Syriac-Coptic bilingual glosses on wooden boards (P.Kell.Syr./Copt. 1=105–111 and P.Kell.Syr./Copt. 2=112–126); and a fragmentary page from a double-sided parchment codex in four columns, apparently two in Syriac and two in Greek (the content is too fragmentary to assess, but mention of ‘spirit,’ ‘pity,’ and ‘mercy’ suggests it could be Manichaean (P.Kell.Syr./Gr. 1=129–131).²¹⬈#p11

Although it is not certain whether the literary manuscripts from Kellis were actually copied there, the numerous texts on wooden boards, sometimes bound in codex form, were shorter and ephemeral, with substantial evidence for reuse; these were almost certainly produced in the oasis. These include school exercises in both Greek (P.Kell.Gr. 90) and Coptic (P.Kell.Copt. 10); another Kephalaia-like composition (T. Kell.Copt. 1), and, especially, various Psalm manuscripts, presumably for personal use. Of the twenty-one manuscripts with Manichaean Psalms at Kellis, most of them very fragmentary, five are on wooden tablets: P.Kell.Gr. 98; T.Kell.Copt. 2, 4, 6, 7.²² P.Kell.Gr. 98, containing the Prayer of the Emanations, a daily prayer for catechumens, is written on a single board, perhaps to aid in recitation, whether in a private or communal context. T.Kell.Copt. 2 is a wooden codex constructed of five boards, with only one containing legible text, in this case a psalm; as the editors note, this seems to have been ‘recycled’ from an earlier codex in the construction of a new one, as revealed by two sets of drilled holes.²³ There is writing in two columns on both sides, consistent with the codex format. However, only the beginnings of Psalm verses are recorded; they are cut off at the end of the line, and the next line starts the new verse.²⁴ T.Kell.Copt. 4 is a wooden board that was also originally part of a codex, with writing on both sides, containing psalm 222 from the Medinet Madi Psalmbook (part 2), and Psalm 109, from the unpublished Psalmbook part 1.²⁵ In this case, verses are written out in full. T.Kell.Copt. 6 is another board with Psalms (this one has Psalm 261 from part 1 of the Psalmbook), but the text is fragmentary and it is not possible to reconstruct the layout of lines and verses fully.²⁶ Three leaves and related fragments (P.Kell.Copt. 1–3) may have belonged to a codex (or codices), but their multiple, unpracticed hands have led the editor to hypothesize that they ‘belong together and are the remains of what might best be termed a “scrap-book” of Manichaean psalms.’²⁷ Finally, two Greek hymns (P.Kell.Gr. 91 and 92) are written on both sides of a papyrus leaf with no signs of being part of a codex; the editors suggest that they were amulets.²⁸⬈#p12

2.2.2 Medinet Madi

The Medinet Madi corpus of Manichaean codices consists of seven Coptic papyrus codices and several associated wooden covers, which appeared on the Cairo antiquities market in 1929–1930. They represent important works of Manichaean literature, attributed to Mani himself and his early followers: the Acts, related to early missionary journeys; the Epistles of Mani; Homilies related to his death and the subsequent persecutions; two volumes of Kephalaia, that is, doctrinal chapters, the first in Berlin, the second in Dublin; the Psalmbook; and the Synaxeis.²⁹ These were purchased separately by Chester Beatty and Berlin institutions, and in the subsequent decades underwent a slow, tortuous path of conservation and study, interrupted by various events, including World War II. As a result, despite being of comparable importance to the Nag Hammadi Library, and ongoing intensive conservation efforts, they remain only partly edited.³⁰ Given this situation, it is perhaps not surprising that there is no overview of the codicology or paleography of the corpus. This section thus can provide only a provisional assessment, to be expanded in a later study, since various codicological and paratextual elements cannot be assessed for the unpublished sections.⬈#p13

The page sizes for the seven Medinet Madi codices are difficult to determine in their present state, as many pages seem to have been damaged and diminished during the conservation process. According to the eminent papyrus conservator Hugo Ibscher, who did the initial work of separating and stabilizing the pages, six of the books had an original page size of 31.5 x 18 cm, with the slightly smaller Psalmbook measuring 27 x 17.5 cm.³¹ The conserved leaves are usually smaller, but the likely explanation is that papyrus fibres were lost as they were removed from the book blocks. Extant page and column size, and estimated original number of pages are given for the seven codices in Table 1 below.⬈#p14

These dimensions correspond to ‘Group 5’ in Turner’s typology of papyrus codices (approximately 30 x 18 cm), which did not include the Medinet Madi corpus. Codices from ‘Group 5’ are attested from the third to the seventh century, with the most occurring in the fifth century.³² While this is consistent with the suggested date range for the Medinet Madi texts from radiocarbon analysis, what is perhaps most striking is that the Group 5 dimensions are ‘well paralleled in parchment.’³³ In the case of Manichaean texts, this might have been an attempt to reproduce the size of source books from the Syro-Mesopotamian region, which would likely have been made of parchment rather than papyrus.⬈#p15

The Medinet Madi corpus has some important additional shared features. Although the size of individual leaves is not particularly large, in respect to the number of leaves, several of the Medinet Madi codices are among the very largest surviving papyrus codices from antiquity, with at least three originally containing 500 or more pages, and a fourth at around 496. Not surprisingly, all have multiple quires, of consistent size throughout the manuscript, either quaterniones or seniones, and all feature quire numbers, even if these are only occasionally still extant (for a fuller discussion, see section 3.4 below). Although a comparative paleography of the corpus has not been carried out, the preliminary assessment of Paul Dilley suggests multiple hands between (and sometimes within) the codices, but a relatively consistent style. With regard to page layout, all the Medinet Madi manuscripts, with the exception of the Psalmbook index, are written with a single column per page (which, it must be said, is in contrast to most early Syriac examples). All but the Psalmbook codex have running headers, a rarity in Late Antique codices from Egypt, and otherwise unattested for Coptic ones. Only one, the first volume of the Kephalaia, has page numbers. Instead, the codices are organized by numbered headings, breaking the text up into chapters, psalms, epistles, and readings.⬈#p16

In contrast to the Nag Hammadi corpus, as well as most of the Bodmer papyri, each of the Medinet Madi codices has a clear thematic unity, rather than being a miscellany of various texts, even if most have more than one work.³⁴ Paola Buzi suggests that, at least until the sixth century, single-text manuscripts ‘usually transmit “orthodox” biblical texts;’ the Medinet Madi codices, though far larger than surviving Coptic biblical manuscripts from this period, must have played a similarly authoritative role for the Manichaean community.³⁵ It is likely that they constituted part of a reference library, which wandering Electi took from one Egyptian Manichaean community to another, where they would have been copied as needed for local use. Indeed, the relative linguistic, codicological, and paleographical uniformity of the Medinet Madi corpus suggests that they were not only composed within the same community, probably in middle Egypt around Lycopolis, but also that they traveled together to their modern findspot, allegedly the Fayyum, where a different Coptic dialect was used. Despite their size, they could be transported, and indeed Manichaean texts would have constituted the Elect’s most important material possession.⬈#p17

2.2.3 Cologne Mani Codex

The Cologne Mani Codex (CMC) is a miniature parchment codex containing a Greek version of a biography of Mani. It appeared on the antiquities market in the 1960s, of unspecified Egyptian provenance.³⁶ Like the Syriac fragments, it is not certain that the CMC was produced in Egypt; the use of parchment could suggest a different origin, such as Syria. The Greek text itself, likely translated from Aramaic,³⁷ has had major ramifications for the scholarly understanding of Mani’s early life and mission. As a physical object it is likewise exceptional, being one of the smallest codices from antiquity, with a page size of only 38 x 45 mm. With 23 text-lines plus a header per page, letters of about 1mm in height, and originally about 200 or more pages, it has rightfully been described as ‘a masterpiece of ancient book production’.³⁸⬈#p18

The CMC’s dating has been much debated, centering almost exclusively on paleography: the editors dated the script to the fifth century but a subsequent study argued for an eighth-century date.³⁹ Most recently, Orsini has dated the manuscript’s two scribal hands differently: an earlier hand B was responsible for quires 2–7 and the first part of quire 8 can be compared with hands of sixth-century manuscripts, while a later hand A (who also restored damaged text from the beginning and end of the codex) was responsible for the first quire and the end of quire 8. Hand A is much later, being contemporary with eighth-ninth century manuscripts.⁴⁰ However, the recent radiocarbon dating of the codex suggests a range between the mid-third century to the mid-sixth century.⁴¹ Indeed, an eighth or ninth-century copy would be unlikely given the lack of other evidence for Manichaeaens in Egypt at such a late date. Whatever its date, the CMC shares the prevalent codex form, but its small size makes it exceptional.⬈#p19

2.3 North Africa

Although the existence of Latin Manichaean texts, probably codices, from North Africa in Latin is both implied and explicitly mentioned in the writings of Augustine, original Manichaean Latin manuscripts have, with one exception, not survived.⁴² That lone exception is the Tebessa Codex (BnF Nouv. acq. lat. 1114), a fragmentary codex discovered near its namesake (ancient Theveste, modern Tebessa) in Algeria in 1918.⁴³ The extant text preserves parts of at least one work, possibly two, which discusses the status of Manichaean elect and hearers. The codex is on parchment, written two columns to the page, in a half uncial script and dated to the fifth-sixth centuries. Because of its fragmentary nature, little else can be said regarding its codicology, as the quire structure and page format are quite unclear. The most recent studies argue that it is indeed an original Latin composition, that it may draw from the Diatessaron for Gospel quotations, and that in other places it shares readings with both the Vulgate and Vetus Latina.⁴⁴ It follows the standard format and material of other surviving Late Antique Latin books from North Africa, namely the parchment codex.⬈#p20

2.4 Turfan

The Manichaean manuscript remains from sites in the Turfan oasis (modern-day Xinjiang, China) comprise the largest, though also the most fragmentary, find of Manichaean materials from antiquity. Several thousand fragments in Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian, and Old Uighur, as well as some in Bactrian, Early New Persian, and Tocharian, were discovered by expeditions to the Turfan region in the early 1900s.⁴⁵ Most came from what seems to have been a major Manichaean communal complex in Qocho, with other fragments from various smaller sites in the region. It is also clear that some texts were produced elsewhere, both at local sites which have not yielded Manichaean remains in situ, as well as places farther afield, including as far west as Samarkand, and later brought or sent to Qocho.⁴⁶ Many of these manuscript fragments, including the most impressive illuminated ones, were produced after Manichaeism became the official religion of the Uighur kingdom around 760 ce, and began to benefit from state patronage.⁴⁷ While only one text bears a clear date in the text (M1 / MIK III 203, mentioning both 762 and 832 ce), several others can be dated to the late eighth century and some even as late as about 1000 ce through comparative means.⁴⁸ The texts thus attest to original compositions from the late eighth to early 11th centuries, as well as translations and copies of much older works, including parts of the canonical works of Mani. Moreover, it has also been speculated that original works composed in Iran or Khorasan, and preceding the eighth century, are preserved among the Turfan remains.⬈#p21

The Manichaean manuscript remains from Turfan are not only linguistically diverse, but also show a wide range of manuscript formats and materials.⁴⁹ There are numerous examples of codices, with a huge variety of page sizes attested, ranging from 5.8 x 3.4 cm to over 50 x 30 cm.⁵⁰ However, no complete codex, or even complete quire, survives. The vast majority of codex fragments are written on paper, both ramie/hemp-based rag paper as well as mulberry-fibre paper, which may indicate differing places of production, but there are a handful of parchment fragments well. The codex pages are laid out with 1 to 4 text-columns per page, although the most common layout is 1 or 2 columns. There are also a number of paper scrolls. These are largely a secondary book format—Manichaean texts written on the blank versos of re-used Chinese Buddhist scrolls.⁵¹ There are also a few official letters which were written on new scrolls, and Gulácsi argues that fragments of Mani’s Picture Book from Turfan come from both scrolls and codices.⁵² In addition, there are a number of standalone texts on paper slips and sheets either produced to the size needed, or trimmed from Chinese Buddhist scrolls. There are even a few examples of Manichaean pustaka-format books, and texts of uncertain format on silk cloth.⁵³ The dominant book format, however, is certainly the paper codex.⬈#p22

The Turfan fragments themselves, however, provide few references to the context of book production and use in the Manichaean community there. Even the documentary texts connected to the Manichaean sites mention books or writing only infrequently, such as in Bezeklik B, a letter between high-ranking Manichaean officials, which reports that various Elect read from various writings (Sogdian npyk, a generic term for a written document) during the month of fasting.⁵⁴ Fortunately, there are two illuminated fragments of codex pages which depict books and writing. A depiction of the Bema celebration on MIK III 4979 verso shows an Elect holding a codex aloft, suggesting that the codex was the book form used in liturgical contexts.⁵⁵ And the illumination on MIK III 6368 shows multiple Elect writing with reed pens on rectangular sheets of paper.⁵⁶ These may depict loose folia which would later be assembled into quires of codices.⬈#p23

The Turfan manuscript remains, like those from Kellis, discovered in the ruins of Manichaean sites, show that the community made use of different types of written materials, and different book formats in particular, for different purposes. Unfortunately, though, the archaeological context of the Turfan discoveries was extremely poorly documented, and the reason for the variation in writing supports is not yet well understood, but there are relationships between the purpose of a given text, the availability of local resources for book production, and the local cultural contexts in need of further exploration. Unlike the Manichaean textual remains from Egypt, however, those from Central Asia stand out from contemporaneous neighboring manuscript traditions in several additional ways: the dominant use of the codex form is only shared with the Christian remains from Turfan (although it is not clear to what extent Christian and Manichaean communities may have overlapped or interacted there) but not with the Buddhist or non-religious administrative text remains. Moreover, the use of the Manichaean script to write several languages (in addition to the use of their native scripts), was limited to the Manichaean community. In Turfan, then, it is certainly possible to speak of a locally distinctive Manichaean book format.⬈#p24

2.5 Dunhuang

When Manichaeism was introduced to China, not only were many of its writings translated from Iranian languages to Chinese, but they were also incorporated into Chinese manuscript culture.⁵⁷ Three Chinese Manichaean texts, all well-preserved, and one text in Old Uighur were discovered in the famed Mogao Caves near Dunhuang. In contrast to Turfan, where the majority of texts are in codex format, all of the Manichaean texts at Dunhuang, both doctrinal and liturgical, were written on paper scrolls. Unfortunately, most discussions, and even editions, of these texts do not discuss their codicological details, and so this section mostly consists of exploratory notes situating the Chinese texts within the larger orbit of Manichaean scriptures and non-Manichaean texts from Dunhuang. The sizes of the Chinese scrolls from Dunhuang are presented in Table 2 below.⬈#p25

The Hymnscroll, Traité/Tractatus, and Compendium have all been dated to the Tang period (618–907 ce), largely by their content and special characters; none are datable by colophon. Their codicology confirms their Tang-era composition, although it has not been previously discussed for the purpose of dating, either individually or as a group. All three manuscripts have measurements consistent with the Tang period according to the codicological typology for Dunhuang Buddhist scrolls proposed by Akira Fujieda, which have individual paper panels 26–28 cm in height and 40 cm in length.⁵⁸ Thus the Manichaeans who wrote their texts in Chinese, whose manuscripts have been recovered from Dunhuang, adopted the typical book format of Buddhist texts, just as they made significant use of Buddhist (and Taoist) terminology; notably, the Manichaeans did so rather than adopt a codex-like structure such as the booklet, which would have been available. In short, it would seem that the Manichaean attachment to the codex, which is still evident at Turfan, had faded away at one more remove from Western Eurasia.⬈#p26

The Old Uighur text from Dunhuang is an example of the Xwāstwānīft, a confession manual for Elect, which is one of the best attested eastern Manichaean writings, as it is preserved in two nearly complete paper scrolls, one from Dunhuang (BL Or. 8212), and one from Turfan, currently held in St. Petersburg; there are, as well, numerous codex and scroll fragments of it from Turfan, which are currently held in Berlin.⁵⁹ The Dunhuang Xwāstwānīft is quite different from the standard sutra format of the Chinese Manichaean texts: it measures 10 cm in height and 430 cm long; it was presumably brought to Dunhuang from a Turkic-speaking region, perhaps Turfan itself. The St. Petersburg Xwāstwānīft manuscript, from Turfan, is slightly larger than the Dunhuang Manichaean scrolls, being approximately 30 cm in height and 256 cm in length, with individual paper sheets of 46 cm in length. Because, as Larry Clark has argued, the two appear to have been copied from the same base text, it seems plausible that this text was first copied in Dunhuang, using the paper available there; and then brought to Turfan, where it was copied using the slightly larger format.⁶⁰⬈#p27

3. Comparative Manuscriptology: Four Case Studies

In this section we examine in-depth four features of comparative manuscriptology related to surviving Manichaean texts, comparing the Western and Eastern Manichaean corpora with each other and with as much contemporary evidence as possible, especially Late Antique manuscripts in Syriac, Greek, Coptic, and Latin, as well as the relevant Turfan material, despite its generally fragmentary condition. In doing so, we hope to illustrate several points. First, that the detailed comparison of the physical remains of Manichaean manuscripts, despite their diverse geographical and chronological contexts, is essential for tracing the development and interconnection of Manichaean book practices across Afro-Eurasia. Second, that the comparison of Manichaean evidence with contemporary non-Manichaean evidence productively enriches the study of both. And seen more broadly, this examination of manuscriptological case studies is one way of approaching the larger question of the connectedness and continuity of the Manichaean community over great times and distances.⬈#p28

We have selected three paratextual features and one codicological feature for comparison. The paratextual features are text-division strategies (such as the formulas beginning and ending texts within a book), running headers, and indices to hymnbooks. The codicological feature is quire structure (including size and numbering). These four features are present to one extent or another in nearly all Christian/Eastern Mediterranean manuscript traditions, but have hardly been studied comparatively, even across early Christian corpora.⁶¹ Quire structure information is not available for many individual manuscripts. While improving existing documentation of these and other features remains a desideratum, this initial foray assembles the available evidence for Manichaean texts, comparing the surviving evidence from the Mediterranean and Central Asia.⬈#p29

3.1 Text Division

The early Christian and Manichaean manuscripts have various strategies for dividing texts within a manuscript, that is, indicating the end of one text, be it a section, chapter, or standalone work, and/or the beginning of another. Some manuscripts simply provide a superscriptio: the title of the work precedes the body text and is set off from it in some way, whether by means of spacing, decorative marks, or another technique. For example, Papyrus 46 (early 200s ce) precedes the text of Corinthians with the simple title ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΟΥΣ Α ‘To the Corinthians (Book) 1’ in larger letters set off slightly from the main text.⁶² Other manuscripts make use only of a subscriptio, such as in Codex Sinaiticus (~350 ce) which ends the Gospel of John with the text ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ ‘Gospel according to John’.⁶³ Both these layouts — title at the beginning or at the end — occur in Greek and Coptic codices dated from the early third century through to the fifth century. The Nag Hammadi codices, for example, vary, using at times either the superscriptio or the subscriptio paratext, and, in a very few places, both together.⁶⁴⬈#p30

Two additional text-division layouts are also in play by the fourth century, though, both of which involve paratext which brackets or frames the entire work. One is to precede a work with a superscriptio consisting of the title and follow it with an ending formula. The other is to frame the work with both a beginning and an ending formula, which will be referred to here as incipits and explicits after their Latin versions.⁶⁵ Both of these layouts will be discussed in depth in this section. Strangely, however, these rather fundamental aspects of the organization of text, and indeed of the story of the development of manuscripts in general, hardly merit more than passing mention in any of the standard works on the ancient book or text criticism.⁶⁶ In addition this section aims to highlight the importance of paratextual strategies for manuscript studies and sketch a general history of the appearance and usage of these strategies.⬈#p31

3.1.1 Title + Explicit

In the Syriac tradition, the oldest datable example of the title + explicit text-division layout occurs in BL Add. 12150, itself the oldest dated Syriac codex, with a colophon stating that it was copied in 411 ce (Fig. 1). Undated examples from about the same time include the Curetonian Gospels⁶⁷ (Add. 14451; LDAB 116124) and Syriac Sinaiticus⁶⁸ (ms. Sin. Syr. 30; LDAB 117850), both dated on codicological grounds to the early fifth century ce. In these codices, separate works, or separate books of the Gospel, are demarcated at their beginning by the title of the work or book set off from the main text as a superscriptio. The explicit is composed of the text title preceded by the word ܫܠܡ šlem ‘ended’. Both are typically written with red ink.⬈#p32

The use of the title + explicit strategy continues to appear in Syriac manuscripts from the fifth century onwards, but little mention is made of it in works of Syriac codicology.⁶⁹ It is not entirely standardized, though; for example Add. 14425, a copy of the Peshitta with a colophon dated 463/4 ce, uses only an explicit with seemingly no title preceding individual texts.⁷⁰⬈#p33

In Coptic manuscripts, however, the use of an explicit is quite rare, which is unsurprising if one considers that Coptic texts typically had Greek antecedents.⁷¹ Of the Manichaean Coptic manuscripts, only one codex has a preserved title + explicit strategy, the Homilies codex.⁷² The beginning of each homily — there are four extant in the codex — is preceded by a title set off from the body text with dashed lines. The explicit is similar, but adds a verbal phrase with ϫ ‘end’ or ‘complete’ in the past affirmative conjugation—perhaps a translation of Greek ἐπληρώθη, discussed below. For clarity all examples from the Homilies codex are given below; those on page 7 are illustrated in Fig. 2.⁷³⬈#p34

This is an exact parallel with the Syriac examples just discussed. As the title + explicit strategy is uncommon in Coptic manuscripts in general, and only attested in this way in a Manichaean text, which likely has a Syriac ancestor, even if through a Greek intermediary, it is reasonable to postulate that the strategy was carried over from Syriac book formatting by Manichaeans for the preparation of some of their Coptic (and probably also Greek) books. However, it must be noted that text-division strategies in the Medinet Madi codices vary: for example, the Epistles codex uses a superscriptio (sometimes with a simple ϩ ‘amen’ as subscriptio), while the Kephalaia codices have only superscriptiones (including chapter numbers), though the latter are related to internal text divisions.⬈#p35

Significantly, at least one of the Manichaean texts from Kellis, where we have clearer evidence for the use of Syriac by the Manichaeans,⁷⁴ also contains a title + explicit. In this case, however, it is a wood tablet (T. Kellis 22) containing a text known as the ‘Prayer to the Emanations’ in Greek.⁷⁵ The exact same strategy as the Coptic and Syriac is used, but in Greek.⬈#p36

The Cologne Mani Codex, the longest surviving Manichaean text in Greek, does not have any extant text division strategy; it appears to have been a monographic codex (though the beginning and end are not preserved), and sections are only indicated by a superscriptio usually consisting solely of the name of a disciple.⁷⁶ As mentioned previously, its dating is debated, with estimates for its original production ranging from the fifth to eighth – ninth centuries. It may thus be a slightly later witness to Egyptian Manichaean book production tradition than the Medinet Madi texts, although it is also possible that its layout reflects an ‘archaizing’ style, just as paleographers have observed for scripts, perhaps especially if the work was considered to be an early and authoritative one by the copyists.⬈#p37

To sum up: the title + explicit layout is not only common in the Christian Syriac book tradition, but also appears in the Manichaean Coptic and Greek. These thus agree in this paratextual strategy against the Christian Coptic and Greek book traditions, which tend to use only a superscriptio or subscriptio.⁷⁷⬈#p38

3.1.2 Incipit + Explicit

The strategy of demarcating a work or simply framing an entire monographic text with incipit and explicit formulas seems to appear for the first time in Latin manuscripts of the Bible. We are not aware of early Latin manuscripts with other text division strategies. Although the relevant parts of many early manuscripts are not preserved, we see the incipit + explicit strategy in the earliest dated Vetus Latina versions of the Gospels. For example, in the fourth/fifth century Codex Bobbiensis, which contains only parts of Mark and Matthew, an entire page is dedicated to demarcating the transition between Mark and Matthew, containing the explicit to Mark and the incipit to Matthew in red ink (Fig. 3).⁷⁸⬈#p39

Of roughly similar date to Codex Bobbiensis is the Greek/Latin bilingual Codex Bezae. It uses the incipit + explicit strategy for the Latin text of the right-hand pages, but also, and uniquely among Greek manuscripts of this period, for the facing Greek text of the left-hand pages (Fig. 4).⬈#p40

As the Greek text seems to be heavily dependent on the Latin, rather than belonging to a separate Greek recension, it stands to reason that the incipits and explicits have been calqued from the Latin.⁷⁹ Additional support for this comes from the fact that the Greek verb used in them is not consistent: for example, on 103v it is ετελεσθη (from τελέω) while on 284v it is ἐπληρώθη (from πληρόω), the latter happening to correspond to the form used in the Manichaean wood tablet containing the ‘Prayer of the Emanations’. While the origins of Codex Bezae are debated, it seems that Lebanon is still the most likely candidate.⁸⁰ In sum, the incipit + explicit strategy is virtually standard in Latin Christian manuscripts of this time.⁸¹⬈#p41

The earliest usage of these formulas in non-Christian Latin manuscripts seems also to be around the fifth century. For example, both the famed Codex Puteanus containing parts of Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita and the Vergilius Romanus have incipits and explicits in red ink.⁸² The existing evidence thus provides a terminus post quem of the 400s for this text-division strategy in Latin codices. The incipit + explicit remains a feature of Latin manuscripts, including non-Christian works, for the subsequent millenium and eventually is calqued into medieval European vernacular languages as well.⬈#p42

The only non-Christian and non-Latin manuscript tradition that also makes use of the incipits and explicits text-division strategy, to our knowledge, is the Manichaean manuscript tradition as attested by the manuscript fragments preserved in Turfan. Manuscripts in the three major Iranian languages used by the community there (Middle Persian, Parthian, and Sogdian) have incipit and explicit formulas as a standard feature of book organization; there are also a few surviving Old Uighur examples, probably anomalous only due to the manuscripts’ fragmentary state. It is safe to say that incipits and explicits appear in virtually every manuscript that has the relevant part preserved.⁸³ Examples of the formulas in these four languages is given below; how this looks on a full page is illustrated here with the fragment M4b (Fig. 5), one of two surviving bifolia of a book of abbreviated hymns.⬈#p43

The use of this strategy in an Iranian-language manuscript tradition seems to be uniquely Manichaean, as neither incipits nor explicits are attested in any other Iranian-language manuscript tradition: non-Manichaean texts in Avestan, Middle Persian, Sogdian, or New Persian, regardless of the religious background, contain no incipits or explicits at all.⁸⁴ Even the Christian texts in Syriac and Sogdian recovered from Turfan, which are comparatively better preserved, have no extant incipits or explicits anywhere — though even if they did, we would expect them to align rather with the more western Syriac title + explicit strategy.⁸⁵ This suggests it is neither a local codicological feature adopted by Manichaeans in Central Asia, nor one which they inherited via an Iranian-language manuscript tradition. Rather, the Manichaeans must have brought it from somewhere else. This is also suggested by the word order: while the default position of the verb in the three Iranian languages is at the end of the phrase, the incipits and explicits as a rule have the verb first, which corresponds with the usual ordering in their Latin use, as well as in Syriac and Coptic. Here again it seems unlikely that the correspondence between the Latin Christian and the Iranian Manichaean text-division strategy is completely fortuitous. We therefore also propose that the incipit + explicit strategy of the Iranian Manichaean manuscripts was carried over by the Manichaeans from an eastern Mediterranean or Near Eastern context in which the same Latin-derived paratextual strategy was circulating.⬈#p44

3.2 Running Headers

There is another interesting correspondence between many Western and Eastern Manichaean manuscripts, on the one hand, and Syriac and Latin manuscripts, on the other: running headers in the top margin. Rare in extant Greek Christian manuscripts, running headers are nearly ubiquitous in Latin manuscripts of the Bible, both Old and Vulgate, while present irregularly in Syriac ones. In the Manichaean texts, both Greek and Coptic manuscripts have running headers, as do most manuscripts from Turfan. Here a brief overview of running headers in these aforementioned traditions is provided, before a more in-depth look at them in Manichaean books.⬈#p45

A major concern with investigating ancient book construction, especially parts more prone to damage or loss such as the outer parts of pages, is that one cannot assume that a given feature did not exist simply because it is not extant. This of course applies to headers, since many ancient books were cut or re-bound in the pre-modern era, and the top parts of pages were often trimmed off, especially in the Greek and Syriac traditions. It is therefore significant that, nevertheless, Parker showed that only three of the sixty-seven Greek manuscripts copied before 500 ce that have preserved top margins bear running headers; namely Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae.⁸⁶ Regarding their presence in Bezae, Parker concludes that they are a feature derived from the Latin practice of the Latin-trained scribe; this is in agreement with other aspects of Bezae, such as the presence of incipits and explicits in the Greek text, paralleling the Latin.⁸⁷ In Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, however, the presence of headers is more surprising, and their form varies quite a bit throughout the codices, which perhaps is to be expected given the lack of a standard form for running titles in Greek.⁸⁸⬈#p46

The evidence for running headers in older Syriac manuscripts is similarly problematic, since many Syriac manuscripts were rebound at later dates and the pages trimmed, removing much of the margins. Yet some of the oldest Syriac codices do still have extant headers, although these are usually single-page, where they typically occur either on the versos or on the last page of the quire.⁸⁹ In Add. 12150, for example, dated to 411 ce, a header reading ܩܠܡܣ ‘Clement’ in red ink appears on the verso of each page at least in the first parts of the codex. In Cod. Syr. 1, dated 462 ce, the header reading ܐܩܠܣܥܣܬܥܩܐ ‘Ecclesiastes’ only appears on the last page of each quire. In general, where extant, the norm for Syriac codices seems to be single-page rather than facing-page headers.⁹⁰ It is also clear, however, that many Syriac codices did not have headers at all.⬈#p47

Regarding non-Manichaean Coptic manuscripts, a preliminary survey of the earliest surviving codices suggests that none employed running headers.⁹¹ For Latin, on the contrary, Lowe has shown that running headers are found in virtually all of the oldest manuscripts, although of course their contents vary somewhat.⁹² While in most cases they occur on every set of facing pages, in some, such as the Codex Fuldensis, they occur only on every other set of facing pages. The presence of running headers in early Latin manuscripts can therefore be considered standard practice.⬈#p48

In Manichaean codices from Egypt as well as Turfan, running headers also occur. From Egypt, five of the seven Medinet Madi books—the Homilies, both the Kephalaia volumes, the Epistles, and Synaxeis—have confirmed running headers on every set of facing pages; likewise, the CMC also has running headers on all facing pages. However, there is an important functional difference within this group: the running headers of the CMC and two Kephalaia volumes are consistent over the entire book and contain the title of the work as a whole, whereas the running headers of the other books contain the title of the text of the main pages, and hence are not consistent over the entire book. In the Acts codex, only a few pages of which survive, some type of header seems to have been used but the relevant pages have not yet been edited. The Psalmbook, in contrast, has standalone headers on each page. Examples from the Greek and Coptic Manichaean codices are given in Table 3, with montage images in Figs. 6 and 7.⁹³⬈#p49

Running headers on facing pages are typical of the Manichaean manuscripts from Turfan as well. Indeed, virtually every codex page where the top part is preserved has a header. However, since no complete codex is preserved, it is difficult to make a general statement about how headers functioned over the entirety of a codex. It is nevertheless clear that a majority of preserved cases contain running headers on facing pages. The following are illustrative examples, selected from numerous attestations (running headers of non-consecutive pages are also visible in Fig. 4):⬈#p50

In many Turfan manuscripts, the header also often contains the incipit or explicit formula, if a text ends on that page and has an incipit or explicit on the main text of the page; in these cases the header is typically contained on a single page. M801a, for example, the best preserved codex from Turfan, shows that the header system could be mixed, containing both running headers which displayed the title of the current text spread over facing pages, and single headers which displayed the incipit/explicit formula or a short title on a single page (Fig. 6).⁹⁴ It emerges from this that the header’s function was thus to indicate to the reader the text of a given set of pages, or to notify the reader that the text was changing on that page. Finally, other types of running headers are also attested: in particular, there are two examples of a continuous (albeit only partially preserved) header running over multiple pages as a kind of colophon: M178 (parchment, Sogdian), and M98–99 (paper, Middle Persian).⁹⁵⬈#p51

The evidence presented in this section allows for two conclusions. First, the Eastern and Western Manichaean manuscript traditions agree closely in the presence and function of running headers in codices. Second, the Manichaean tradition overall groups closely with the Latin Christian tradition, where running headers are the norm; the single-page headers of the Coptic Psalmbook parallel the Syriac Christian, where single-page headers are not uncommon. In two comparison groups, the non-Manichaean Greek and Coptic, running headers are not the norm; moreover, in the Christian manuscripts from Turfan, running headers are virtually non-existent. As in the case of text division, then, we see a distinctive paratextual strategy, to some extent characteristically Manichaean, in use by both the Mediterranean and Central Asian communities.⬈#p52

3.3 Hymnbook Indices

3.3.1 Medinet Madi Psalmbook and Kellis Psalms

The Coptic Psalmbook of Medinet Madi is the longest surviving codex from antiquity. Though still not fully edited, it is more than 500 pages long and contains over three hundred psalms. It is clearly meant to be a reference work, given the deliberate collection of multiple sub-groups of Psalms (including the Bema Psalms, Psalms of Heracleides, and Psalms of Thomas), which are numbered successively up to 289, and indexed; but at the same time it has elements of a miscellany, with additional unnumbered and unindexed Psalms. Within the second part of the Psalmbook, which has been edited, there appear to have been three different scribes, although the later two are only responsible for a limited number of corrections, glosses, and additions; the third added a pious note (called an ‘ignorant colophon’ by Allberry) on p. 113.⁹⁶ The codex bears an index of 5 pages in length, which, however, only takes account of the 289 numbered psalms, and not the unnumbered psalms on more than 100 pages preceding it. Each index page is laid out in two columns, with superscriptiones denoting up to 19 different groups of psalms: each line contains the psalm-incipit (usually the first line, but sometimes abridged) and a number corresponding to the number of the psalm in the main text of the book.⁹⁷ This form of abbreviation might be called ‘indexical,’ in the sense that the psalm-incipit and the number do not function as an aide-mémoire, but as a reference for discovery of the respective psalm within the main text. Unfortunately the index is not well preserved, and up to a third of the psalm-incipits, as well as most of the superscriptiones, are illegible, though the majority of the numbers, which are in any case sequential up to 289, are preserved.⬈#p53

From Kellis, a wooden tablet held to belong to a wooden codex also contains an index. T. Kell. Copt. 2 includes the initial lines of each verse of several individual Psalms (at least two of which correspond to unpublished Psalms in the first half of the Psalmbook).⁹⁸ The format of the book and the fact that the entire Psalm is represented through verse abbreviations, suggests it was used in a liturgical context.⁹⁹ As Gardner suggests, the “index” would not have functioned as a means to find the full text of the Psalm elsewhere in the wood codex, but as an aide-mémoire.⬈#p54

3.3.2 Turfan Hymnbooks

Hymns were one of the central genres of eastern Manichaean literature, and hymn fragments represent a significant proportion of the surviving texts from Turfan.¹⁰⁰ There are at least three great hymn cycles — the Middle Persian Gōwišn ī grīw zīndag and the Parthian Huyadagmān and Angad rōšnān — each consisting of several hundred strophes, as well as fragments or references to hundreds of additional shorter hymns. Yet there are no well-preserved books containing collections of hymns, only a few fragments, which seem to be the indices to hymn collections which are otherwise lost.⬈#p55

M1 (MIK III 203), known as the Mahrnāmag ‘hymn-book’, is one of the most significant Manichaean fragments from Turfan despite consisting of only a single bifolio, since one of the folios bears the only colophon preserved among all the Manichaean Turfan fragments that provides both the date and location of production. The colophon dates the manuscript’s completion to around 832 ce in the town of Agni (about 240km southwest of Turfan proper) and includes a long list of Manichaeans and patrons from among the Uighur court, all in Middle Persian (Fig. 7).¹⁰¹ The other folio preserves part of an index of hymn-incipits (the header reads in Middle Persian mhrsʾrgʾn ‘hymn-beginnings’) to Parthian hymns, which suggests that it was one of the final pages of a large-format hymnbook. It is one of the larger folio sizes attested from Turfan as well, at 21.1 x 12.2 cm, with each column containing thirty-eight short lines of text.⬈#p56

Two other fragments of similar structure survive, though both are smaller format pages and neither is very legible: M576, a single, nearly-complete folio with a Parthian header reading bʾšʾ sʾrgʾn zwynʾn (‘beautiful hymn-beginnings’), even though the main text is almost completely effaced; and O11075, which is very fragmentary.¹⁰² All three index pages have three text columns, with one hymn-incipit per line and the hymns grouped by type. The hymn groups are separated by paratextual elements: in M1 there is only a subscriptio for each group giving the hymn type in red ink and total number of hymns of that type; in M576 there is an incipit formula at the beginning of each hymn group and a subscriptio with the hymn type and number of hymns in red ink; O11075 is too fragmentary to give exact information. None of the hymn beginnings are numbered. The hymn groups and number of hymn beginnings per group are given in the following table:⬈#p57

The hymnbook for which the fragment M1 was the index must have been voluminous. If each hymn were only one page long, there would have been a minimum of 220 pages. As the index contains no numbering system, and indeed extant hymn fragments themselves contain no type of numbering, it is a matter of speculation how hymns could be cross-referenced; perhaps each header contained the hymn-beginning of the hymn on that page.⬈#p58

Other fragments show that a larger system of grouping and referencing hymns must also have existed, giving groups of hymns to be used on particular occasions, for example, but grouping them on the basis of melody rather than subject or type. For example, in M759I verso, the caption preceding the first line of the hymn ‘Blessed, blessed (be) Mār Mani, lord commander, beneficent god’ (ʾfryd ʾfryd mrymʾny bg sʾstʾr yzd nywgr) instructs that it be sung ‘in the melody of Mercy on me Messiah’ (ʾmwjd pd mn mšyhʾh nwʾkyy).¹⁰³ Another fragment, M798b, groups multiple hymns together on the basis of shared melody (ʿyn sẖ pd yq nwʾg ‘These three in a single melody’), and listing the hymn beginnings in one column together with the hymn type in the other column.¹⁰⁴⬈#p59

Some scholars have suggested that the format of M1 is archaic, going back to a time before page numbers and more complex indexing strategies were in common use, and that the Coptic Psalmbook represents a slightly later stage of indexing.¹⁰⁵ What the two large hymn-indices have in common is that they are organized by thematic group, with each hymn listed by its first words. Given that comparable indices are not known so far, it is possible that a common origin underlies both the Psalmbook and M1 as regards their format and location at the end of the codex. While we can be sure that the index of M1 had no numbering strategy, we cannot be certain that the hymns themselves were not numbered or otherwise labelled in such a way as to facilitate their finding, since the remainder of the book is missing. Here, though, the divergence between the two hymnbooks parallels one of the main codicological divergences between the Medinet Madi and Turfan corpora, namely, in the presence and absence, respectively, of page and quire numbers. As already mentioned, the presence of some form of numbering is characteristic of the Medinet Madi codices, while the absence thereof is equally characteristic of the Turfan fragments. Still, the Psalmbook’s index with a page layout of two columns is rather unusual for Coptic texts of the early period. That such indices are represented in both the Mediterranean and Central Asia is not necessarily evidence that the Manichaeans invented this particular strategy of information representation, or even that they were early adapters of it; but it does suggest a consistent usage, presumably going back to Sasanian Mesopotamia, and particularly associated with large manuscripts of psalms tied to ritual performance, a key practice of the community almost entirely ignored by heresiologists.¹⁰⁶⬈#p60

3.4 Quire Structure

Quire size and structure are some of the more frequently studied aspects of the composition of early codices in general, yet Manichaean quires have not received due attention, especially in comparison to non-Manichaean practice.¹⁰⁷ The Manichaean manuscripts from Egypt, in particular, having been discovered in relatively better states of preservation, can be fruitfully compared with contemporaneous codices. It is much more difficult to obtain evidence from the Turfan codices, however, due to those manuscripts’ correspondingly poor preservation.⬈#p61

The Medinet Madi codices with known quire structures have quires of either 4 or 6 bifolia. Those composed of quaternions are the Homilies codex, the Dublin Kephalaia, and possibly also the Synaxeis.¹⁰⁸ The Berlin Kephalaia, in contrast, is composed of senions, as is the Psalmbook.¹⁰⁹ The Cologne Mani Codex is also composed of senions.¹¹⁰⬈#p62

Comparatively speaking, the Manichaean codices from Egypt occupy an interesting position. While Turner asserts that, for Greek and Latin multiple-quire books, the quaternion became the dominant quire size from about the fourth century on, a range of quire sizes is attested during the first few centuries, and senions are not unknown, though slightly less common.¹¹¹ Single-quire codices, such as twelve of the thirteen Nag Hammadi codices, likely came first, and typically contain 20–30 bifolia.¹¹² The majority of medieval (about 800 ce on) Coptic codices are quaternions.¹¹³ Syriac codices typically consist of quinions, though quaternions are not unknown; however, a more detailed overview of Syriac quire sizes does not yet exist and remains a desideratum.¹¹⁴⬈#p63

As the Turfan texts survive largely as single bifolios, single pages, or fragments thereof, it is impossible to study larger aspects of codex composition in this corpus.¹¹⁵ There are only a few texts which are exceptions to this fragmentary state of preservation. One of the examples of Mani’s Šābuhragān was pieced together by modern scholars from individually-preserved bifolia; based on the order and continuity of the text, MacKenzie posited that parts of two octonions are preserved.¹¹⁶ But even more exceptional would be the miniature codex M801a (= MIK III 203), for which parts of two quires containing sixteen bifolia each have been postulated.¹¹⁷ Similarly, Boyce, in her study of Manichaean hymn-cycles, identified two separate examples of what may be quires of up to twelve bifolia, and another of a quire of at least ten bifolia.¹¹⁸ If these suppositions are correct, then the Manichaean books mentioned here are exceptions to the norms for quire structure as attested in the Late Antique and early medieval Mediterranean. But, it is possible that there simply was a great variety of quire structures in Turfan (or in the Central Asian Manichaean communities more generally), perhaps because the codex form was not yet standard in those regions, and that the Manichaean evidence reflects this. It is also worth wondering whether structurally, since nearly all the Turfan books are of paper, larger quires were more stable than they would have been with papyrus or parchment.⬈#p64

Once again, the possibility of some kind of local, external influence on Manichaean books seems rather unlikely. The only nearby codex-dominant manuscript culture would have been the Christians of Turfan, but no connections between the two communities have been shown. Moreover, the format of the Christian book remains from Turfan conform largely to the norms of more western Christian communities. Regarding quires, Sims-Williams suggested that most Turfan Christian codices, both Syriac and Sogdian, probably had quires of five bifolia, in accordance with what is usually said about Syriac codices generally, though he allowed that larger sizes might be possible under Manichaean influence, without speculating on the nature of that influence.¹¹⁹ Hunter and Coakley, in their recent edition of a well-preserved Syriac service-book (MIK III 45) from Turfan dated to the seventh/eighth century, note that it consists of quires of either seven or eight bifolia; they postulate an origin of the book in Merv rather than in Turfan.¹²⁰⬈#p65

Regarding quire numbering, there is much less information available. For the Berlin Kephalaia, Ibscher noted that quires were numbered on the first and last page of each quire using Coptic letters, while for the Dublin Kephalaia Gardner has discovered a quire number in the upper-left corner of the first page of a quire.¹²¹ In contrast, the Psalmbook has page numbers,¹²² the only Manichaean codex, east or west, with attested pagination. Quire numbers are not attested on Turfan Manichaean fragments in any language, so far as is known.¹²³ Despite the highly fragmentary nature of the Turfan texts, there are enough relevant pages and parts of quires preserved that the discovery of quire numbers would be somewhat surprising. Given this lack of information, or indeed of the use of quire numbering altogether, a comparison is not possible. At the very least, the slight Manichaean Coptic evidence is consistent with both Coptic and Syriac examples more generally. In both traditions, matching quire numbers or marks are typically placed on the first and last pages of the quire, though the location of the number or mark on the page varies. More generally, the codex format, of which quire structure is an integral part, seems to have been favored by Manichaeans in both the Mediterranean and Central Asia, a fascinating convergence which we will now examine in detail.⬈#p66

4. Manichaean Books and the Spread of the Codex: An Afro-Eurasian Perspective

Scholars have long noted the strong preference for the codex of early Christians within the Roman Empire, as compared to non-Christians, especially for bible manuscripts.¹²⁴ The surviving papyrological evidence from Egypt during the third and fourth centuries confirms this: a far greater percentage of identifiably Christian books are in the codex format, as opposed to the scroll, and in contrast to books with non-Christian content, in which the scroll predominates, despite a trend towards more frequent use of the codex overall.¹²⁵ A number of interpretations have been put forward to explain Christians’ use of the codex, such as its presumed greater portability, ease of reference, or cost-effectiveness, but there is still no consensus among scholars, beyond a sense that multiple factors were involved.¹²⁶⬈#p67

Although Manichaeans living in the Roman Empire usually self-identified as Christians, none of the major studies on the ‘rise’ of the codex consider them specifically.¹²⁷ It is unclear whether Mani and his early followers shared the Christian preference for the codex, because none of their surviving manuscripts are securely dated to the third or early fourth century.¹²⁸ An inquiry into Manichaean book culture must be grounded in the context of Mani’s own activities as a Mesopotamian scribe. One of the earliest and most influential polemical accounts of Mani describes him as holding a ‘Babylonian book’ (Babylonium librum), but this ambiguous term is not elaborated on, or attested elsewhere in Greek or Latin texts.¹²⁹ Material evidence for manuscripts produced in Mesopotamia during the first centuries of the Common Era is also lacking. But there is evidence for a long tradition of using leather scrolls for Aramaic texts, alongside the more permanent cuneiform tablets, going back to the Achaemenid period and earlier.¹³⁰ Similarly, Aramaic-speaking religious groups within the Syro-Mesopotamian orbit, such as the Qumran community, primarily used parchment scrolls for their compositions.¹³¹ As an Aramaic speaker with connections to Sasanian officials, it is likely that Mani and his followers in Mesopotamia also used parchment scrolls,¹³² and indeed, in one of his polemical expositions, Ephrem notes that Mani used a ‘scroll’ (mgalltā) for his picture book.¹³³ Moreover, P. Dura 24, a one-sided parchment manuscript fragment from Dura Europos containing part of the Diatessaron, approximately datable to Mani’s lifetime, is a scroll.¹³⁴ By contrast, there is no evidence for the use of codices in early Sasanian Mesopotamia.¹³⁵ Indeed, the Mandaeans, a Sasanian religious group associated in some ways with the Manichaeans, produced their writings on scrolls, and still do so, except for the most holy book, the Ginza, which at some point came to be copied as a codex.¹³⁶ Although there are good reasons to think that the earliest Manichaean books were in scroll format, this must remain speculative due to lack of evidence.⬈#p68

Almost all known surviving Manichaean texts from this early era are codices, except for a few Syriac fragments, as already discussed. By the later fourth century, then, Manichaeans in the Roman Empire appear to have preferred codices, as did other Christians, although it should be noted that the sample size is not sufficient to make firm conclusions. They may have adopted the codex format in much the same way as other Christians did, and likely also owned codices produced by non-Manichaean Christians. That said, the corpus of Manichaean manuscripts presents features which are outliers within the broader set of Late Antique codices and which suggest that the community possessed a highly developed and skillful scribal culture, indeed something noted by ancient authors both within and outside of it. In particular, the CMC is the smallest page-size codex among surviving manuscripts, while the Medinet Madi manuscripts are among the largest surviving papyrus codices by page count. The running headers in several of the Medinet Madi codices are among the earliest, if not the earliest, of these little-studied examples.¹³⁷ This evidence does not necessarily suggest that the Manichaeans were innovators with respect to these features, or that they were particularly associated with them; but that they had access to and made use of high-quality, sophisticated, book and scribal arts. Furthermore, at least one particularly Christian scribal practice, the use of nomina sacra abbreviations, was adopted by the Manichaeans and expanded, most notably in the use of an abbreviation  for Manichaios (Mani) found in the Medinet Madi codices.⬈#p69

There is almost no evidence for Manichaean book formats or materials in Mesopotamia and Iran itself at any date, except for the account by Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1201) of a persecution during the reign of the caliph al-Muqtadir: ‘(In 311 ah / 923 ce) in the middle of Ramaḍān the image of Mani and four sacks of heretical books were burned at the public gate, and gold and silver of the same value (as the books themselves) flowed from them’.¹³⁸ While this is highly circumstantial evidence, it might suggest luxury bindings of codices, or perhaps gold and silver ink on dyed parchment, elements which would not be surprising given the luxurious quality of some of the Turfan texts. Given the pervasiveness of the codex form among Muslims, Jews, and Christians during the Abbasid period, it is reasonable that the Manichaeans themselves used it. But, it is still an open possibility that the Manichaeans in Mesopotamia transitioned to the codex from the roll already under the Sasanians, under influence from their Western co-religionists.⬈#p70

We are even more in the dark about the format and material of the earliest Manichaean books used in the eastward mission through Iran and Central Asia. According to tradition, the Manichaean written tradition in Iranian languages is generally thought to have begun with Mar Ammo, Mani’s disciple, who was sent as a missionary eastward from Babylon because of his knowledge of the Parthian language, and who presumably set up the first Manichaean communities east of Sasanian Mesopotamia already in the late third century.¹³⁹ There is, however, little documentation of the history of eastern Manichaeism between this point and the flourishing of Manichaeism in the western Uighur kingdom from around the eighth century on.⬈#p71

When eastern Manichaean textual culture first comes into view, with the many Turfan fragments composed between the late eighth and early eleventh centuries, the prevalence of the codex format, with various numbers of quires, is striking. Although papyrus and parchment, the usual Mediterranean-region materials, have been replaced by paper, the use of the codex distinguishes Manichaean (and Christian) texts from Buddhism, in particular, the other major literary tradition present at Turfan. The most logical explanation is that the codex was adopted by Uighur Manichaeans because it was also employed by Sogdian (and/or Parthian and Middle Iranian) speaking scribes from Merv or further west, and was used in the liturgy. It thus became a distinctive marker of Manichaean identity, though, as in the case of Late Antique Christians in the Mediterranean region, it is difficult to know whether it was explicitly acknowledged and cultivated as such. Paradoxically, given its novelty as a format within Central Asian scribal culture, the use of the codex was more exceptional there. On the other hand, the eastern spread of the codex among Manichaeans ends at Dunhuang, where the Chinese Manichaean texts are all in scroll format. This is not for lack of connections with communities to the West, as there seems to have been interchange with the Turfan region, which itself had connections to Manichaean communities in West Asia. This is a complicated question worthy of future research.⬈#p72

5. Conclusions

This study has attempted to establish a foundation for a comparative study of Manichaean manuscripts. We have based our work on codicological and paratextual descriptions, which are not universally available, even for well-known manuscripts; more attention to these details will be crucial as editions and re-editions proceed. Our comparative strategy follows several methodological principles: first, Manichaean manuscripts must be studied in the context of the local manuscript cultures in which they were produced; second, that they must be compared across cultures to determine the extent to which (if at all) there was a coherent and consistent Manichaean scribal practice that can best be understood within a transregional, even global, history of the book. Although we could only address selected aspects of the construction and organization of Manichaean codices here, we hope to have shown that this two-fold comparative approach sheds a great deal of light not only on their coherence within a Manichaean tradition of book production, but also on the discussion of the development and spread of the codex format more generally. We are convinced that this approach is extensible not only to further aspects of Manichaean manuscriptology, but also to the comparative study of Afro-Eurasian manuscripts more generally.⬈#p73

The comparative study of the four selected features in this study has yielded two somewhat unexpected conclusions. The first is that the two major corpora of Manichaean manuscripts, the Medinet Madi and Turfan texts, separated by several centuries and many thousands of kilometers, show striking parallels in their layout and organization. Since the extent to which the Manichaean church was a coherent structure over the many disparate regions where Manichaean communities existed remains largely unknown, we could not assume at the outset that Manichaean books would have been produced to similar standards in all the communities. Though much further research is needed on this matter, our initial study suggests that textual practices of the early Manichaean community in Mesopotamia were adapted as it spread both east and west, and that this is reflected in certain striking similarities between Mediterranean and Central Asian Manichaean manuscripts, often in contrast to other local manuscript cultures.⬈#p74

The second conclusion is that the Manichaean evidence occupies a peculiar place among the early codex corpora. For example, with regard to running headers, the Egyptian and Iranian texts more closely parallel the Latin, and to a lesser extent Syriac, practice than they do their neighboring non-Manichaean Coptic and Greek ones. With regard to the use of incipit and explicit text-division strategies, the Coptic parallels Syriac most closely, while the Iranian parallels Latin, both to the exclusion of Greek and non-Manichaean Coptic. The quire sizes of the Coptic and Iranian materials, however, do not quite match, with the extant quires for the latter corpus being much larger than any attested quires from the Mediterranean area, Manichaean or otherwise. And indeed, there are in addition many other aspects of Manichaean codices which, with comparative attention, should make possible additional questions. More generally, we have demonstrated that a cross-lingual comparative manuscriptology, for example between Eastern Mediterranean or Middle Iranian languages, can discover unexpected connections, such as similar paratextual strategies found in Latin and Syriac, but not Greek, manuscript production.⬈#p75

These results only highlight to us the importance of including Manichaean manuscripts in local and regional histories of the ancient and medieval book. Although the precise chronology and details of exchange elude us, this narrative overview suggests that the Mesopotamian center of Manichaeism was a nexus of exchange between its Mediterranean communities, on the one hand, and its Iranian and Central Asian communities, on the other. This is particularly true if Mani at first used the scroll format. The use of the codex in Turfan, in contrast to Buddhist textual practice, suggests that it was adopted from Mesopotamia, which in turn would have adopted it from the Roman Mediterranean. So we may be witnessing a centuries-long procession of the multi-quire codex format eastward, over the Sasanian empire, towards Central Asia. This is a spread, but not a ‘triumph,’ as is often proclaimed in Eurocentric histories of the book. In Central Asia, the codex might have been a distinctive marker of Manichaean (and Christian) communities, but there is no evidence that it was adopted more widely in the medieval period, given the popularity of paper scrolls, booklets, and various other formats.⬈#p76

Bibliography

Allberry, Charles R.C. (1938), A Manichaean Psalm-Book, Part II, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.⬈#reference-1

Bagnall, Roger (2009), Early Christian Books in Egypt, Princeton: Princeton University Press.⬈#reference-2

Băncilă, Ionuţ Daniel (2018), Die mandäische Religion und der aramäische Hintergrund des Manichäismus: Forschungsgeschichte, Textvergleiche, historisch-geographische Verortung, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.⬈#reference-3

Barbati, Chiara (2014), ‘Codicological issues in exploring the Christian Sogdian manuscript fragment tradition’, Gazette du livre médiéval, 61: 20–35.⬈#reference-4

Barbati, Chiara (2018), ‘On the Numbering of Quires in the Christian Sogdian and Syriac Manuscript Fragments in the Turfan Collection (Berlin) and the Krotkov Collection (St. Petersburg)’, Written Monuments of the Orient, 6/2: 92–133.⬈#reference-5

Bausi, Alessandro, et al. (2015), Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction, Hamburg: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies.⬈#reference-6

BeDuhn, Jason & Geoffrey Harrison (1997), ‘The Tebessa Codex: A Manichaean Treatise on Biblical Exegesis and Church Order,’ in Jason BeDuhn & Paul Mirecki (eds), Emerging From Darkness: Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean Sources (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 43), Leiden: Brill, 33–88.⬈#reference-7

BeDuhn, Jason & Greg Hodgins (2017), ‘The Date of the Manichaean Codices from Medinet Madi, and its Significance’, in Lieu, Hunter, et al.(eds), 2017, 10–28.⬈#reference-8

BeDuhn, Jason, Paul Dilley & Iain Gardner (2023), The Medinet Madi Library of Manichaean Codices at 90: Papers from the Symposium at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, 18-19 October 2019 (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 104), Leiden: Brill.⬈#reference-9

Benkato, Adam (2017), Āzandnāmē: An edition and literary-critical study of the Manichaean-Sogdian Parable-Book (Beiträge zur Iranistik, 42), Wiesbaden: Reichert.⬈#reference-10

Benkato, Adam (2017a), ‘Incipits and Explicits in Iranian Manichaean Texts’, in Lieu, Hunter, et al. (eds) 2017, 29–42.⬈#reference-11

Böhlig, Alexander (1966), Kephalaia, Bd. I, 2. Hälfte [Lieferung 11–12], Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.⬈#reference-12

Borbone, Pier-Giorgio, Françoise Briquel-Chatonnet and Ewa Balicka-Witakowska (2015), ‘Syriac codicology’, in Bausi et al. (eds) 2015,252–266.⬈#reference-13

Brand, Mattias (2022), Religion and the Everyday Life of Manichaeans in Kellis: Beyond Light and Darkness (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 102), Leiden: Brill.⬈#reference-14

Buckley, Jorunn (2010), The Great Stem of Souls: Reconstructing Mandaean History, Piscataway: Gorgias Press.⬈#reference-15

Burkitt, Francis Crawford (1904), Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac Patristic evidence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.⬈#reference-16

Buzi, Paola (2016), ‘From Single Text to Multi-text Manuscripts: Transmission Changes in the Coptic Tradition. Some Case-Studies from the White Monastery Library,’ in Michael Friedrich and Cosima Schwarke (eds), One-Volume Libraries: Composite and Multi-Text Manuscripts (Studies in Manuscript Cultures, 9), Berlin: De Gruyter, 93–110.⬈#reference-17

Buzi, Paola (2020), ‘The Ninth-Century Coptic “Book Revolution” and the Emergence of Multiple-Text Manuscripts,’ in Alessandro Bausi, Michael Friedrich, and Marilena Maniaci (eds), The Emergence of Multi-Text Manuscripts (Studies in Manuscript Cultures, 17), Berlin: De Gruyter, 125–142.⬈#reference-18

Buzi, Paola & Stephen Emmel (2015), ‘Coptic Codicology’, in Bausi et al. (eds) 2015, 137–153.⬈#reference-19

Cipolla, Carlo (1913), Il codice evangelico k della Biblioteca Universitaria Nazionale di Torino (Raccolta di codici riprodotti in fac-simile a cura della Regia accademia delle scienze di Torino), Turin: G. Molfese.⬈#reference-20

Clark, Larry (2013), Uygur Manichaean Texts: Texts, Translations, Commentary. Volume II: Liturgical Texts (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series Turcica, II), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-21

Colditz, Iris (2013), ‘Die Manuskriptologie der iranisch-manichäischen Turfanfragmente’, in Ludwig Paul (ed.), Handbuch der Iranistik, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 352–360.⬈#reference-22

Dickens, Mark (2013), ‘Scribal Practices in the Turfan Christian Community’, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 13: 3-28.⬈#reference-23

Dilley, Paul (2017), ‘From Textual to Ritual Practice: Written Media and Authority in Shenoute’s Canons’, in Malcolm Choat and Mariachiara Giorda (eds), Writing and Communication in Early Egyptian Monasticism, Leiden: Brill, 73–107.⬈#reference-24

Dilley, Paul (2023), ‘The Chester Beatty Kephalaia: Report on Work in Progress’, in Jason BeDuhn, Paul Dilley, and Iain Gardner (eds.), The Medinet Madi Library of Manichaean Codices at 90, Leiden: Brill, 24-34.⬈#reference-25

Dougherty, Raymond (1928), ‘Writing upon Parchment and Papyrus among the Babylonians and the Assyrians’, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 48: 109–135.⬈#reference-26

Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond (2005), ‘Manichaean Script’, in Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, 2005, available at <https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/manichean-script>, accessed August 19, 2021.⬈#reference-27

Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond (2006), The Hymns to the Living Soul. Middle Persian and Parthian Texts in the Turfan Collection (Berliner Turfantexte 24), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-28

Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond (2008), ‘Aspects of the Organization of Manichaean Books in Central Asia’, Gazette du livre médiéval, 52–53: 1–15.⬈#reference-29

Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond (2019a), ‘Manichaean Book Quires’, in A Thousand Judgments: Festschrift for Maria Macuch, Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 71-81.⬈#reference-30

Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond (2019b), ‘Observations on the Form of Avestan Texts in the Context of Neighboring Traditions’, in Julia Rubanovich and Geoffrey Hermann (eds.), Irano-Judaica VII, T.2, 199–219.⬈#reference-31

Fonkič, Boris L’vovič and B. L. Poljakov (1990), ‘Paläographische Grundlagen der Datierung des Kölner Mani-Kodex’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 83/1: 22–30.⬈#reference-32

Franzmann, Majella (2005), ‘The Syriac-Coptic bilinguals from Ismant al-Kharab (Roman Kellis): Translation process and Manichaean Missionary Practice’, in Alois van Tongerloo and Luigi Cirillo (eds), Il manicheismo: nuove prospettive della ricerca. Quinto Congresso internazionale di studi sul Manicheismo, atti: Dipartimento di studi asiatici, Università degli studi di Napoli ‘L’Orientale’, Napoli, 2–8 settembre 2001, Turnhout: Brepols, 115–122.⬈#reference-33

Franzmann, Majella & Iain Gardner (1996), ‘Syriac Texts’, in Gardner, Clackson and Franzmann (eds) 1996, 101–131.⬈#reference-34

Fredouille, Jean-Claude, Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, Philippe Hoffmann, Pierre Petitmengin, and Simone Deléani (eds) (1997), Titres et articulations du texte dans les oevres antiques. Actes du Colloque International de Chantilly 13–15 décembre 1994, Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes.⬈#reference-35

Fujieda, Akira (2002), ‘Chronological Classification of Dunhuang Buddhist Manuscripts’, in Susan Whitfield (ed), Dunhuang Manuscript Forgeries, London: British Library.⬈#reference-36

Funk, Wolf-Peter (1997), ‘The Reconstruction of the Manichaean Kephalaia,’ in Paul Mirecki and Jason BeDuhn (eds), Emerging From Darkness: Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean Sources (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 43), Leiden: Brill, 143–159.⬈#reference-37

Funk, Wolf-Peter (1999), Manichaische Handschriften, Bd. 1: Kephalaia I, 2. Hälfte [Lieferung 13/14], Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.⬈#reference-38

Funk, Wolf-Peter (2000), Manichaische Handschriften, Bd. 1: Kephalaia I, 2. Hälfte [Lieferung 15/16], Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.⬈#reference-39

Funk, Wolf-Peter (2018), Manichaische Handschriften, Bd. 1: Kephalaia I, 2. Hälfte [Lieferung 17/18], Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.⬈#reference-40

Funk, Wolf-Peter (2023)^†, “Towards an Edition of the Coptic Manichaean Synaxeis Codex: Another Progress Report,” in Jason BeDuhn, Paul Dilley, and Iain Gardner (eds), The Medinet Madi Library of Manichaean Codices at 90: Papers from the Symposium at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, 18-19 October 2019, Leiden: Brill, 7-14.⬈#reference-41

Gamble, Harry (1995), Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts, New Haven: Yale University Press.⬈#reference-42

Gardner, Iain (1999), ‘The Reconstruction of Mani’s Epistles from Three Coptic Codices’, in Jason BeDuhn and Paul Mirecki (eds), The Light and the Darkness: Studies in Manichaeism and Its World (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 50), Leiden: Brill, 93–104.⬈#reference-43

Gardner, Iain (2007), Kellis Literary Texts. Volume 2 (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monographs, 15), Oxford: Oxbow Press. [=P. Kellis VI]⬈#reference-44

Gardner, Iain (2015), ‘An Introduction to the Chester Beatty Kephalaia Codex,’ in Iain Gardner, Jason BeDuhn, and Paul Dilley (eds), Mani at the Court of the Persian Kings: Studies on the Chester Beatty Kephalaia Codex (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 87), Leiden: Brill, 1–15.⬈#reference-45

Gardner, Iain (2022), Mani’s Epistles: The Surviving Parts of the Coptic Codex Berlin P. 15988 (Manichaische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen Berlin, 2), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.⬈#reference-46

Gardner, Iain, Anthony Alcock, and Wolf-Peter Funk (1999), Coptic Documentary Texts from Kellis, Volume 1 (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monographs, 9), Oxford: Oxbow Press. [=P. Kellis V]⬈#reference-47

Gardner, Iain, Anthony Alcock, and Wolf-Peter Funk (2014), Coptic Documentary Texts from Kellis, Volume 2 (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monographs, 16), Oxford: Oxbow Press. [=P. Kellis VII]⬈#reference-48

Gardner, Iain, Sarah Clackson, and Majella Franzmann (1996), Kellis Literary Texts, Volume 1 (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monographs, 4), Oxford: Oxbow Press. [=P. Kellis II]⬈#reference-49

Gardner, Iain, Jason BeDuhn, and Paul Dilley (2018), The Chapters of the Wisdom of My Lord Mani, Part III: Pages 343–442 (Chapters 321–347) (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 92), Leiden: Brill.⬈#reference-50

Gardner, Iain and Samuel N.C. Lieu (2004), Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.⬈#reference-51

Gardner, Iain (2022), Mani’s Epistles: The Surviving Parts of the Coptic Codex Berlin P. 15988 (Manichaische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen Berlin, 2), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.⬈#reference-52

Gathercole, Simon J. (2013), ‘The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts’, Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 104: 33–76.⬈#reference-53

Giversen, Søren (1986), The Manichaean Coptic Papyri in the Chester Beatty Library (Cahiers d’Orientalisme, XV), 4 vols., facsimile edition, Geneva: Patrick Cramer.⬈#reference-54

Guangda, Zhang and Rong Xinjiang (1998), ‘A Concise History of the Turfan Oasis and Its Exploration’, Asia Major, 11/2: 13–36.⬈#reference-55

Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna (2001), Manichaean Art in Berlin Collections (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series Archaeologica et Iconographica, 1), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-56

Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna (2005), Medieval Manichaean Book Art: A Codicological Study of Iranian and Turkic Illuminated Book Fragments from 8th–11th Century East Central Asia (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 57), Leiden: Brill.⬈#reference-57

Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna (2016), Mani’s Pictures: The Didactic Images of the Manichaeans from Sasanian Mesopotamia to Uygur Central Asia and Tang-Ming China (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 90), Leiden: Brill.⬈#reference-58

Haloun, Gustav and Walter B. Henning (1952), ‘The Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani, the Buddha of Light’, Asia Major (new series), 3; 184–212.⬈#reference-59

Hatch, William H.P. (1946), An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, Boston: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences.⬈#reference-60

Henning, Walter B. (1936), Ein manichäisches Bet- und Beichtbuch (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 10), Berlin.⬈#reference-61

Henning, Walter B. (1948), ‘A Sogdian Fragment of the Manichaean Cosmogony’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 12: 306–318.⬈#reference-62

Henrichs, Albert (1979) ‘The Cologne Mani Codex Reconsidered’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 83: 339–367.⬈#reference-63

Holtz, Louis (1997), ‘Titre et incipit’, in Fredouille, Goulet-Cazé, et al. (eds) 1997, 439–469.⬈#reference-64

Hope, Colin A. and K. A. Worp (2006), ‘Miniature Codices from Kellis’, Mnemosyne, 59/2: 226–258.⬈#reference-65

Hope, Colin A. and Gillian E. Bowen (2022), Kellis: A Roman-Period Village in Egypt’s Dakhleh Oasis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.⬈#reference-66

Houghton, Hugh A. G. (2016), The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.⬈#reference-67

Hunter, Erica and J.F. Coakley (2017), A Syriac Service-Book from Turfan: Museum für asiatische Kunst, Berlin MS MIK III 45 (Berliner Turfantexte, 39), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-68

Hurtado, Larry W. (2006), The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.⬈#reference-69

Hutter, Manfred (1992), Manis Kosmogonische Šābuhragān-Texte. Edition, Kommentar und literaturgeschichtliche Einordung der manichäisch-mittelpersisch Handschriften M 98/99 I und M 7980–7984 (Studies in Oriental Religions, 21), Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.⬈#reference-70

Ibscher, Hugo (1933), ‘Die Handschriften,’ in Schmidt and Polotsky, 82-85.⬈#reference-71

Ibscher, Rolf (1954), ‘Wiederaufnahme und neuester Stand der Konservierung der Manichäischen Papyruscodices,’ in D. Sinor (ed), Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Congress of Orientalists. Cambridge, 21^st-28^th. August, 1954, London: Royal Asiatic Society.⬈#reference-72

Iricinschi, Eduard (2009), ‘A Thousand Books Will Be Saved: Manichaean Writings and Religious Propaganda in the Roman Empire’, in Craig Evans and Daniel Zacharias (eds), Jewish and Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 261–272.⬈#reference-73

Iricinschi, Eduard (2011), ‘Tam pretiosi codices uestri: Hebrew Scriptures versus Persian Books in Augustine’s Anti-Manichaean Writings’, in Philippa Townsend and Moulie Vidas (eds), Revelation, Literature, and Community in Late Antiquity, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 153–176.⬈#reference-74

Jenkins, R.G. (1995), ‘The Prayer of the Emanations in Greek from Kellis (T. Kellis 22)’, Le Muséon, 108/3–4: 243–263.⬈#reference-75

Koenen, Ludwig and Cornelia Römer (1988), Der Kölner Mani-Kodex. Über das Werden seines Leibes. Kritische Edition (Abhandlung der Reinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Papyrologica Coloniensia, 14), Opladen: Westdeutscher.⬈#reference-76

Kraus, Thomas J. (2016), ‘Miniature Codices in Late Antiquity: Preliminary Remarks and Tendencies about a Specific Book Format’, Early Christianity, 7/1: 134–152.⬈#reference-77

Kudara, Kōgi, Werner Sundermann and Yutaka Yoshida (1997), イラン語断片集成 大谷探検隊 収集・龍谷大学所蔵中央アジア出土イラン語資料 (Iranian Fragments from the Ôtani Collection), 2 vols., Kyoto: Hōzōkan.⬈#reference-78

Larsen, Matthew and Mark Letteny (2019), ‘Christians and the Codex: Generic Materiality and Early Gospel Traditions’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 27: 383-415.⬈#reference-79

Leurini, Claudia (2017), Hymns in Honour of the Hierarchy and Community, Installation Hymns and Hymns in Honour of Church Leaders and Patrons: Middle Persian and Parthian Hymns in the Turfan Collection (Berliner Turfantexte, 40), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-80

Lieu, Samuel N.C. (1984), Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China: A Historical Survey, Manchester: Manchester University Press.⬈#reference-81

Lieu, Samuel N.C., Erica Hunter, Enrico Morano, and Nils Arne Pedersen (eds) (2017), Manichaeism East and West (Corpus fontium Manichaeorum, Analecta Manichaica, 1), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-82

Lieu, Samuel N.C. and Gunner B. Mikkelsen, in association with Lance Eccles, Enrico Morano, Nils Arne Pedersen, Nicholas Sims-Williams and Alois van Tongerloo (2017), Tractatus Manichaicus Sinicus, Pars Prima: Text, Translation, and Indices (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series Sinica, 1.1), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-83

Lowe, Elias A. (1925), ‘Some Facts about Our Oldest Latin Manuscripts’, The Classical Quarterly, 19/3–4: 197–208.⬈#reference-84

Lowe, Elias A. (1928), ‘More Facts about Our Oldest Latin Manuscripts’, The Classical Quarterly, 22/1: 43–62.⬈#reference-85

MacKenzie, David N. (1979–1980), ‘Mani’s Šābuhragān’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 42: 500–534; 43: 288–310.⬈#reference-86

Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart D. Ehrman (2005), The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Oxford: Oxford University Press.⬈#reference-87

Meyer, Elizabeth (2007), ‘Roman Tabulae, Egyptian Christians, and the Adoption of the Codex’, Chiron, 37: 295–348.⬈#reference-88

Millar, Fergus (2011)’, ‘Greek and Syriac in Edessa from Ephrem to Rabbula (ce 363–435)’, Semitica et Classica, 4: 99–113.⬈#reference-89

Mirecki, Paul (1988), ‘The Coptic Manichaean Synaxeis Codex: Descriptive Catalogue of Synaxis Chapter Titles,’, in Peter Bryder (ed), Studies in Manichaeism: Select Papers from the First International Conference on Manichaeism, Lund: Plus-Ultra, 135–145.⬈#reference-90

Mirecki, Paul (2023), ‘Comments on a Possible Second Text in the Coptic Manichaean Synaxis Codex,’ in Jason BeDuhn, Paul Dilley, and Iain Gardner (eds), The Medinet Madi Library of Manichaean Codices at 90: Papers from the Symposium at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, 18-19 October 2019, Leiden: Brill, 15-23.⬈#reference-91

Morano, Enrico (2018), ‘Some Codicological Remarks on the Corpus of the Berlin Turfan Manichaean Sogdian Manuscripts in Manichaean Script: Among Books, Glossaries, Letters, Booklets, Bilingual and Trilingual Texts, Normal, Bold and Cursive Script,’ in Chiara Barbati and Olga Chunakova (eds), Studies in Early Medieval Iranian Religious Manuscript Traditions other than Islamic (Written Monuments of the Orient 2/8), 11–38.⬈#reference-92

Moriyasu, Takao (2001), ‘Uighur Buddhist Stake Inscriptions from Turfan,’ in L. Bazin and P. Zieme (eds), De Dunhuang à Istanbul: Hommage à James Russell Hamilton (Silk Road Studies, 5), Turnhout: Brepols, 149–223.⬈#reference-93

Moriyasu, Takao (2004), Die Geschichte des uigurischen Manichäismus an der Seidenstrasse, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.⬈#reference-94

Mugridge, Alan (2016), Copying Early Christian Texts: A Study of Scribal Practice, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.⬈#reference-95

Müller, Friedrich W.K. (1913), Ein Doppelblatt aus einem manichäischen Hymnenbuch (Maḥrnāmag) (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil-hist. Klasse, 5), Berlin: G. Reimer.⬈#reference-96

Mundell Mango, Marlia (1992), ‘The Production of Syriac Manuscripts 400–700 ad’, in Guglielmo Cavallo and Marilena Maniaci (eds), Scritture, Libri, et Tesi nelle aree provinciali di Bisanzio. Atti del seminario de Erice (18–25 settembre 1988), Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 161–179.⬈#reference-97

Nongbri, Brent (2018), God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts, New Haven: Yale University Press.⬈#reference-98

Nongbri, Brent (2022), ‘Radiocarbon Dating of the Cologne Mani Codex’,⬈#reference-99

Orsini, Pasquale (2019), Studies on Greek and Coptic Majuscule Scripts and Books (Studies in Manuscript Cultures, 15), Berlin: De Gruyter.⬈#reference-100

Panaino, Antonio (2002), ‘A proposito dell'uso dell'inchiostro rosso nei manoscritti avestici’, Quaderni di scienza della conservazione, 2: 36–55.⬈#reference-101

Parker, David G. (1992), Codex Bezae: An early Christian manuscript and its text, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.⬈#reference-102

Parker, David G., D. Taylor and M. Goodacre (1999), ‘The Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony,’ in David G. Taylor (ed), Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts: the papers of the First Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 192–228.⬈#reference-103

Pedersen, Nils Arne (2006), Manichaean Homilies. With a Number of Hitherto Unpublished Fragments (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series Coptica, 2), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-104

Pedersen, Nils Arne and John Moller Larsen (2013), Manichaean Texts in Syriac: First Editions, New Editions and Studies (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series Syriaca 1), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-105

Poirier, Paul-Hubert (1997), ‘Titres et sous-titres, incipit et desinit dans les codices coptes de Nag Hammadi et Berlin’, in Fredouille, Goulet-Cazé, et al. (eds) 1997, 339–383.⬈#reference-106

Polotsky, Hans Jakob (1934), Manichäische Homilien, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.⬈#reference-107

Polotsky, Hans Jakob and Alexander Böhlig (1940), Kephalaia (i): 1. Hälfte [Lieferung 1–10], Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.⬈#reference-108

Puech, Henri-Charles (1949), Le manichéisme: Son fondateur, sa doctrine, Paris: Civilisations du Sud.⬈#reference-109

Quick, Laura (2020), ‘Scribal Habits and Scholarly Texts: Codicology at Oxyrhynchus and Qumran,’ in Anna Krauß, Jonas Leipziger, and Friederike Schücking-Jungblut (eds), Material Aspects of Reading in Ancient and Medieval Cultures: Materiality, Presence and Performance, Berlin: De Gruyter, 37–54. <doi.org/10.1515/9783110639247-004>.⬈#reference-110

Rault, Lucie (2019), L’Hymnaire manichéen chinois Xiabuzan 下部讚 à l’usage des Auditeurs. Un manuscrit trouvé à Dunhuang, traduit, commenté et annoté (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 94), Leiden: Brill.⬈#reference-111

Reck, Christiane (2005), Gesegnet sei dieser Tag: Manichaeische Festtagshymnen Edition der mittelpersischen und parthischen Sonntags-, Montags- und Bemahymnen (Berliner Turfantexte, 22), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-112

Reck, Christiane (2006), Berliner Turfanfragmente manichäischen Inhalts in soghdischer Schrift (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 18.4, Mitteliranische Handschriften, 1), Stuttgart: Steiner.⬈#reference-113

Reck, Christiane (2010), ‘Some remarks on the Manichaean fragments in Sogdian script in the Berlin Turfan Collection’, in Takashi Irisawa (ed), ‘The Way of Buddha’ 2003: The 100th anniversary of the Otani mission and the 50th of the Research Society for Central Asian Cultures (Cultures of the Silk Road and modern science, 1), Kyoto: Ryukoku University Osaka Tōhōshuppan, 69–74.⬈#reference-114

Reck, Christiane (2013), ‘Nichtbuddhistische mitteliranische Pustakablätter’, in Jens-Peter Laut and Klaus Röhrborn (eds), Vom Aramäischen zum Alttürkischen: Fragen zur Übersetzung von manichäischen Texten. Vorträge des Göttinger Symposiums vom 29./30. September 2011 (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, n.F., 29), Berlin: De Gruyter, 167–178.⬈#reference-115

Reck, Christiane (2014), “The Middle Iranian Manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan Collection: Diversity, Origin and Reuse,” in Nalini Balbir and Maria Szuppe (eds), Lecteurs et copistes dans les traditions manuscrites iraniennes, indiennes et centrasiatiques (Eurasian Studies 12), Rome, 541–553.⬈#reference-116

Reck, Christiane (2018), ‘Short Survey on Sogdian Manuscriptology’, Written Monuments of the Orient, 6/2: 51–66.⬈#reference-117

Reeves, John C. (2011), Prolegomena to a History of Islamicate Manichaeism, Sheffield: Equinox.⬈#reference-118

Richter, Siegfried (1998), Psalm Book, Part II, Fasc. 2, Die Herakleides-Psalmen (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series Coptica, 2), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-119

Roberts, Colin H. and T. C. Skeat (1983), The Birth of the Codex, London: British Academy.⬈#reference-120

Robinson, James (1978), ‘The Future of Papyrus Codicology’, in R. McL. Wilson (ed), The Future of Coptic Studies, Leiden: Brill, 33-43.⬈#reference-121

Robinson, James (2010), The Manichaean Codices of Medinet Madi, Eugene: Cascade Books.⬈#reference-122

Rohmann, Dirk (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censhorship in Late Antiquity: Studies in Text Transmission (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 135), Berlin: DeGruyter.⬈#reference-123

Römer, Cornelia (2021), ‘Die Datierung des Kölner Mani-Kodex,’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 220: 94–96.⬈#reference-124

Schmidt, Carl and Hans-Jakob Polotsky (1933), Ein Mani-Fund in Ägypten, Original-Schriften des Mani und seiner Schüler, Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.⬈#reference-125

Shaki, Mansour and Muhammad A. Dandamayev (1995), ‘Documents i: In Pre-Islamic Periods,’ Encyclopedia Iranica<https://iranicaonline.org/articles/documents>, accessed August 19, 2021.⬈#reference-126

Sims-Williams, Nicholas (1985), The Christian Sogdian manuscript C2 (Berliner Turfantexte, 12), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.⬈#reference-127

Sims-Williams, Nicholas, John S. Sheldon & Zsuzsanna Gulácsi (2023), A Manichaean Prayer and Confession Book (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum: Series Iranica 1), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-128

Smith Lewis, Agnes (1894), A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpset, New York: Macmillan.⬈#reference-129

Stein, Markus (2001), ‘Bemerkungen zum Kodex von Tebessa,’ in Johannes van Oort, Otto Wermelinger and Gregor Wurst (eds), Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West: Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht International Symposium of the IAMS (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 49), Leiden: Brill, 250–271.⬈#reference-130

Stein, Markus (2004), Manichaica Latina, Band 3,1. Codex Thevestinus: Text, Übersetzung, Erläuterungen, Paderborn / Munich / Vienna: F. Schöningh.⬈#reference-131

Sundermann, Werner (2004), ‘Turfan Expeditions’, in Encyclopedia Iranica <http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/turfan-expeditions-2>, accessed August 19, 2021.⬈#reference-132

Sundermann, Werner (2009), ‘Manichaean Literature in Iranian Languages’, in Maria Macuch and Ronald E. Emmerick (eds), The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran. Companion Volume I to A History of Persian Literature (A History of Persian Literature, 17), London: I.B. Tauris, 197–265.⬈#reference-133

Tubach, Jürgen (2000), ‘Mani, der bibliophile Religionsstifter’, in Ronald Emmerick, W. Sundermann and P. Zieme (eds), Studia Manichaica IV. Internationaler Kongreß zum Manichäismus, Berlin: Akademie, 622–638.⬈#reference-134

Turner, Eric G. (1977), The Typology of the Early Codex, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.⬈#reference-135

de la Vaissière, Étienne, Pénélope Riboud and Frantz Grenet (2003) ‘Les livres des sogdiens’, Studia Iranica, 32/1: 127–136.⬈#reference-136

Van Oort, Johannes (2012), ‘Augustine and the Books of the Manicheans’, in Mark Vessey (ed), A Companion to Augustine, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.⬈#reference-137

Vermes, Mark J. (2001), Hegemonius: Acta Archelai (The Acts of Archelaus), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-138

Von Le Coq, Albert (1922), Türkische Manichaica aus Chotscho III (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 2). Berlin.⬈#reference-139

Wilkens, Jens (2000). Manichäisch-türkische Texte der Berliner Turfansammlung. (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 13.6, Alttürkische Handschriften, Teil 8). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.⬈#reference-140

Wilkens, Jens (2008), ‘Musings on the Manichaean “pothi” book,’ Studies on the Inner Asian Languages 23, 209–231.⬈#reference-141

Wright, William (1870), Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum, 3 vols. London: Longmans.⬈#reference-142

Wurst, Gregor (1996), Psalm Book, Part II, Fasc. 1: Die Bema-Psalmen (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series Coptica, 2), Turnhout: Brepols.⬈#reference-143

Yoshida, Yutaka (2017), ‘Relationship between Sogdiana and Turfan During the 10th–11th Centuries as Reflected in Manichaean Sogdian Texts’, 絲綢之路研究 [Journal of International Silk Road Studies], 1: 113–125.⬈#reference-144

Notes

¹ While Benkato had primary responsibility for Central Asian and Dilley for Mediterranean manuscripts, this chapter represents a collaborative effort from the beginning: we have both worked across regions, contributing to all sections, and jointly revising the entire text in the later stages.⬈#footnote-1

² See for example the well-known ‘Ten Points’ text, preserved in Coptic and Middle Persian, in which Mani criticizes prior prophets for not having written their revelations, thus leaving later generations to corrupt them (Gardner and Lieu 2004, 109, 265–268).⬈#footnote-2

³ As Iricinschi 2011, 158 puts it, ‘Manichaean religious propaganda…clearly associated book production and religious duties as features of Manichaean identity.’⬈#footnote-3

⁴ The notion that Manichaeism was the first ‘religion of the book’ goes back to at least Puech 1949, 62–68. For other perspectives on Manichaean book culture, see inter alia Tubach 2000.⬈#footnote-4

⁵ Diocletian’s Edict of 302 ce ordered Manichaean leaders, ‘together with their abominable writings, burnt in the flames’ (Gardner and Lieu 2004, 118); Manichaean books were to be burned, ‘and owners punished,’ in a law of 448 ce issued by Theodosius II and Valentinian III (Rohmann 2016, 101). For the burning of Manichaean books in the context of the later Roman Empire, see Rohmann 2016, passim. In addition, Muslim authors preserve accounts of at least two different book-burning events, one under the caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd (r. 786–809 ce) and one under al-Muqtadir in 923 ce (see Reeves 2011, 230–231)⬈#footnote-5

⁶ See in particular Gulácsi 2005, 60–88 for information on the structure of codices from Turfan including quires, bindings, page manufacture, and book covers, and ibid., 93–104 for information on page ruling and decoration; and Gulácsi’s contribution in this volume. The only other general discussion of codicology is Durkin-Meisterernst 2008, which makes brief remarks about codex structure and page layout, and Durkin-Meisterernst 2019a, which concerns quire structure Medinet Madi and Turfan. Additionally, a great deal of codicological information on the Turfan texts can be found in the individual entries of Reck’s rich catalog of the Sogdian Manichaean fragments (Reck 2006), but a systematic codicology is not her main focus, and other works which make mention of codicology tend to be mainly descriptive lists of different types of fragments.⬈#footnote-6

⁷ The pioneering work in the field, Bausi et al. 2015, completely excludes the Manichaean (and Zoroastrian) manuscript cultures, as ‘a peculiar case in that they illustrate the easternmost diffusion of the codex book form towards India and Central Asia, with a scholarly tradition that has remained extremely specialized’ (2015, 4). Though the Zoroastrian evidence is quite late (the earliest works go back to the thirteenth century ce) and comparatively understudied from a codicological point of view, the Manichaean evidence is a major omission from such a broad and authoritative survey.⬈#footnote-7

⁸ On this matter see Durkin-Meisterernst 2005.⬈#footnote-8

⁹ Pedersen suggests that parchment manuscripts might have been imported from the ‘Syrian region,’ but also notes the evidence for limited production of parchment in Egypt itself (Pedersen and Larsen 2013, 18).⬈#footnote-9

¹⁰ Burkitt 1925, 113–114; cf. Pedersen 2013, 13–16. The Berlin fragments discussed below also may have been used to reinforce bindings (Krutzsch apud Pedersen 2013, 269–275).⬈#footnote-10

¹¹ Burkitt 1925, 112; cf. Pedersen 2013, 21–25, esp. 24–25 on the miniature format.⬈#footnote-11

¹² Pedersen 2013, 272.⬈#footnote-12

¹³ Pedersen 2013, 18.⬈#footnote-13

¹⁴ Pedersen 2013, 18–20.⬈#footnote-14

¹⁵ Pedersen 2013, 25–26.⬈#footnote-15

¹⁶ The excavations are published in the series Dakhleh Oasis Project Monographs. The literary papyri are found in Gardner, Clackson & Franzmann 1996 and Gardner 2007; the documentary papyri are found in Gardner, Alcock & Funk 1999 and 2014. The most recent overview of society and culture at Kellis is Hope & Bowen 2022.⬈#footnote-16

¹⁷ For a synthesis of the Manichaean texts from Kellis, see Brand 2022, especially 305–331.⬈#footnote-17

¹⁸ For the use of different materials and formats within Late Antique Egyptian monastic communities, especially Shenoute’s White Monastery federation, see Dilley 2017.⬈#footnote-18

¹⁹ For a discussion of these letters and the associated families, see Brand 2022, 40–90.⬈#footnote-19

²⁰ See also Gardner 1999. P.Kell.Copt. 53 are fragments from a papyrus codex representing 11 identifiable leaves, while P.Kell.Copt. 54 represents fragments of 1 leaf from a different papyrus codex.⬈#footnote-20

²¹ As the editors note, it is too fragmentary to determine whether the Greek columns are a translation of the Syriac; it seems the leaf is numbered 408, suggesting a large codex such as from the Medinet Madi corpus.⬈#footnote-21

²² For a list of the Psalms texts, see Brand 2022, 219–223.⬈#footnote-22

²³ See Gardner, Clackson & Franzmann 1996, 8–30.⬈#footnote-23

²⁴ Gardner identifies the Psalm A2 on the tablet with an unpublished Psalm from the first half of the Medinet Madi Psalmbook. He further notes: ‘Each line corresponds to the beginning of a verse, perhaps equal to the indented sections in the Medinet Madi Psalmbook. However, in contrast to that fine copy, the text here was probably for “live” congregation usage. The beginning of each verse or refrain is provided to aid the memory.’ (17).⬈#footnote-24

²⁵ Gardner, Clackson & Franzmann 1996, 33–41.⬈#footnote-25

²⁶ Ibid., 43–49.⬈#footnote-26

²⁷ Gardner 1996, 59.⬈#footnote-27

²⁸ Ibid., 132–136, 137–140. See also Brand 2022, 98–104. Brand doubts the identification of P.Kell.Gr. 91 and 92 as amulets on the basis of atypical content; note also that there are no fold marks, as would be expected.⬈#footnote-28

²⁹ Acts: Much of it lost and the surviving pages, approximately nine, are unedited; see Robinson 2010, 225–247. Epistles: Approximately twenty-eight pages remain; see Robinson 2010, 248–267. These are edited in Gardner 2022. Homilies: Edited in Polotsky 1934; and a new edition, with additional fragments, in Pedersen 2006. Berlin Kephalaia: Edited in Polotsky and Böhlig 1940; Böhlig 1966; and Funk 1999, 2000, and 2018. Dublin Kephalaia: First fascicle of ongoing critical edition in Gardner, BeDuhn, and Dilley 2018. Psalmbook: The second part is edited in Allberry 1938, with new editions of select Psalm groups in Wurst 1996 (Bema Psalms) and Richter 1998 (Psalms of Heracleides); the first part is currently being edited by Siegfried Richter. Synaxeis: See Mirecki 1988, Funk 2023, and Mirecki 2023 for a discussion of work done on the codex over the last decades; Dilley, BeDuhn, and Gardner are preparing an edition based on multispectral images of the pages.⬈#footnote-29

³⁰ For an extensive account of the history of the Medinet Madi manuscripts, with codicological information diffused throughout, see now Robinson 2010; for an earlier, brief discussion of their codicology, see Robinson 1978. For ongoing work to publish the Medinet Madi Corpus, see BeDuhn, Dilley, and Gardner 2023.⬈#footnote-30

³¹ Ibscher apud Polotsky 1934, xiii; cf. Robinson 2013, 265, and Giversen 1986, Vol. 2, ix–x.⬈#footnote-31

³² Turner 1977, 16–18.⬈#footnote-32

³³ Turner 1977, 24.⬈#footnote-33

³⁴ The Psalms in a given collection of the Psalms codex are related by theme and, often, liturgical context; the texts in the Homilies are all responses to the experience of persecution and redemption. In the case of the Synaxeis and Acts codices, of course, the full content remains unknown. The second volume of the Kephalaia has an additional text at the end about Mani’s final journeys, arrest, and death in prison. For the content of volume two of the Kephalaia see Dilley 2023.⬈#footnote-34

³⁵ Buzi 2020, 131.⬈#footnote-35

³⁶ The manuscript is now held in Cologne under inventory number P. Colon. 4780. Complete images are available online at both an older site http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/NRWakademie/papyrologie/Manikodex/mani.html as well as a newer site https://papyri.uni-koeln.de/stueck/tm64574.⬈#footnote-36

³⁷ On aspects of the CMC which have been held to be suggestive of a translation from Aramaic to the Greek, see most recently Băncilă 2018, 101–111, with references to earlier discussions. Koenen and Römer (1988) suggest that the original translation was produced in the mid-fourth century.⬈#footnote-37

³⁸ Henrichs 1979, 351, who also notes that other miniature codices which have been compared to the CMC, such as P. Ant. ii 54 or P. Oxy. xvii 2065, both of Egyptian provenance, only have up to 11 text-lines per page and fewer pages altogether.⬈#footnote-38

³⁹ Fonkič & Poljakov 1990, modifying the hypothesis put forward by Koenen & Römer 1988.⬈#footnote-39

⁴⁰ Orsini 2019, 156–157.⬈#footnote-40

⁴¹ Römer 2021; Nongbri 2022. The radiocarbon dating is not necessarily inconsistent with Orsini’s dating of the second hand of the CMC.⬈#footnote-41

⁴² For a broader discussion of books in Manichaean and Christian missionizing and discourse in the Roman empire, see Iricinschi 2009, 2011. Augustine’s comments strongly imply the availability, in Rome, of Manichaean books in languages other than Latin; he usually uses the term liber, sometimes also volumen, for books, and also speaks of ‘parchments’ (membranae), see Iricinschi 2011, 160, 162–166, and Van Oort 2012, esp. 194–196 with references.⬈#footnote-42

⁴³ Complete digital images are available at: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b105154748⬈#footnote-43

⁴⁴ BeDuhn & Harrison 1997; Stein 2001. See Stein 2004 for the most up-to-date edition and translation of the text.⬈#footnote-44

⁴⁵ See Sundermann 2004 for an overview of the Turfan expeditions. The vast majority of material was obtained by the four German expeditions between 1902 and 1914 and is currently housed in Berlin. In addition to manuscripts, frescoes and other objects were also discovered and removed to German and other collections. For a brief general history of the Turfan oasis, see Guangda & Xinjiang 1998.⬈#footnote-45

⁴⁶ As will be discussed below, the hymnbook index fragment M1 / MIK III 203 was found in Qocho, though its colophon indicates that it was begun (and possibly finished) in Agni/Karashahr, about 240km to the southwest of Turfan. Recently Yoshida (2017) has argued that some Turfan texts were sent or brought to Turfan from Manichaean communities in Samarkand. In addition, a mural in Panjikent was discovered which depicts a decorated codex and a divine figure. Although it has been argued that the mural depicts a Zoroastrian divinity, and hence a Zoroastrian book (de la Vaissière, Riboud & Grenet 2003, 130–132), a Manichaean interpretation of the scene, and especially of the format and decoration of the codex, should be seriously considered.⬈#footnote-46

⁴⁷ For a more detailed account of the history of Manichaeism under the Uighurs, see Moriyasu 2004.⬈#footnote-47

⁴⁸ See Moriyasu 2001 for the Turfan stake inscriptions dated to the first decade of the eleventh century.⬈#footnote-48

⁴⁹ The standard codicological survey of the Turfan material is Gulácsi 2005. Though it concentrates primarily on illuminated fragments, it provides a codicological framework for discussing all the fragments, see 59–104. Reck 2010, 2014, 2018, Colditz 2013, Morano 2018, and Durkin-Meisterernst 2008 and 2019b provide briefer overviews of aspects of codicology, while Sundermann 2009 is the standard literature survey (see 202–206 for additional comments on codicology). As mentioned above, the catalogs of Boyce 1960 (Iranian fragments in Manichaean script), Reck 2006 (Iranian fragments in Sogdian script), and Wilkens 2000 (Old Uighur fragments in all scripts) often contain codicological information for individual fragments.⬈#footnote-49

⁵⁰ See Gulácsi 2005, 79, 81 and Gulácsi 2016, 284 for an overview of page sizes. Note that, at 5.8 x 3.4 cm, the smallest attested bifolio size from Turfan (M8110 / MIK III 103) is almost as small as the Cologne Mani Codex. Additionally, the most substantially-preserved codex, a multilingual confession manual for the Elect (M801a / MIK III 53) with parts of 12 bifolia preserved, is also a miniature format at 9.5 x 3.5 cm (ead. 2005, 61–64, Gulácsi in Sims-Williams, Sheldon & Gulácsi 2022, 113–161).⬈#footnote-50

⁵¹ At one of the minor sites in Turfan, Toyoq, re-used scroll fragments are far more numerous than codex fragments, but the reasons for this are unclear, see Benkato 2017, 22–28 for a discussion. Indeed the reasons for which Manichaean texts came to be written on re-used Chinese Buddhist texts has remained unclear.⬈#footnote-51

⁵² Gulácsi 2016, 209–226, and Gulácsi’s contribution in this volume.⬈#footnote-52

⁵³ See Reck 2013 and Wilkens 2008 for the pustakas and Gulácsi 2005, 74–76 for the silk.⬈#footnote-53

⁵⁴ Yoshida 2019, 159–167 for the text of Bezeklik B. The Bezeklik letters, especially A and B in Sogdian, are expensive scrolls produced specifically for the purpose of writing formal letters between Manichaean officials. Bezeklik A even bears an illumination depicting the official to whom it was addressed; a similar illumination on another letter is also attested (MIK III 4614), though the letter text is no longer extant (Gulácsi 2001, 144–146).⬈#footnote-54

⁵⁵ Gulácsi 2001, 70–75; Gulácsi 2005, 52, 146–148.⬈#footnote-55

⁵⁶ Gulácsi 2001, 92–95; Gulácsi 2005, 55–56, 96–97, 155–157.⬈#footnote-56

⁵⁷ For the spread of Manichaeism to China under the Tang, see Lieu 1984, 184–198; for the Chinese Manichaean texts at Dunhuang, see ibid., 202–206.⬈#footnote-57

⁵⁸ Fujieda 2002, 104.⬈#footnote-58

⁵⁹ For a basic discussion of the booklet format, see Colin Chinnery (diagrams by Li Yi and Colin Chinnery), ‘Bookbinding,’ part of the website of the International Dunhuang Project: http://idp.bl.uk/education/bookbinding/bookbinding.a4d#Some%20characteristics%20of%20the%20Dunhuang%20booklets.⬈#footnote-59

⁶⁰ Clark 2013, 7. See most recently Clark 2013, 7–111 for an edition of all the fragments.⬈#footnote-60

⁶¹ See Bausi et al. 2015 for the outlines of a comparative codicology of oriental manuscripts.⬈#footnote-61

⁶² P46=P Chester Beatty 2, f. 38v, digital image available here: https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_P46.⬈#footnote-62

⁶³ Codex Sinaiticus, BL 260r, digital image available here: https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en.⬈#footnote-63

⁶⁴ Poirier 1997, esp. 341–344, 363–379. There are other codices as well which use both, such as Papyrus 72 (P. Bodmer VII) or Papyrus 75 (P. Bodmer XIV–XV).⬈#footnote-64

⁶⁵ Note that in the present work the terms incipit and explicit are italicized when used to refer to the formulaic phrases used to divide texts within a book, in order to distinguish them from the more common use of ‘incipit’ in cataloguing and descriptive works to refer to the first few words of a text (on the origin of this latter see Holtz 1997). The conventions used to refer to these phrases vary, including superscriptio or inscriptio for the incipit, colophon or end-title for the explicit, and so forth, none of which will be used here.⬈#footnote-65

⁶⁶ None in Turner 1977; Roberts & Skeat 1983; Metzger & Ehrman 2005; Hurtado 2006; passing mention in Houghton 2016.⬈#footnote-66

⁶⁷ Wright 1870, vol. 1, 73–75; Burkitt 1904.⬈#footnote-67

⁶⁸ Hatch 1946, Plate XLVI; Smith Lewis 1894.⬈#footnote-68

⁶⁹ Not mentioned in Borbone et al. 2015, for example.⬈#footnote-69

⁷⁰ Add. 14425 was produced in Amida, rather than Edessa (the place of origin of Add. 12150); the difference in text-division strategy may be geographical.⬈#footnote-70

⁷¹ One exception is in Vienna K 2591, a Sahidic ms. containing only part of Mark, the subscriptio to which reads ϩ   ‘The end of (the Gospel) according to Matthew’, see Gathercole 2013, 61 with references.⬈#footnote-71

⁷² In the Acts codex, only a few pages of which survive, there seems to be at least a superscriptio attested in the published material, but a corresponding subscriptio or explicit has not been mentioned.⬈#footnote-72

⁷³ Following the text of Pedersen 2006, 7, 42, 85.⬈#footnote-73

⁷⁴ See Franzmann 2005; Franzmann & Gardner 1996⬈#footnote-74

⁷⁵ Edited by Jenkins 1995.⬈#footnote-75

⁷⁶ See Koenen & Römer 1988. The subheadings give simply the names of various disciples of Mani whose recountings are assembled to provide a biography; the codex seems to have only contained a single work.⬈#footnote-76

⁷⁷ This goes somewhat against Mundell Mango’s point that more attention should be paid to the proximity, in provenance and codicological features, between Syriac and Greek manuscripts of the fourth – seventh centuries (Mundell Mango 1992); for more on the overlap of Greek and Syriac in Edessa at the turn of the fifth century, see Millar 2011.⬈#footnote-77

⁷⁸Published in facsimile in Cipolla 1913, now digitized and available open-access through the Codex Bobbiensis Virtual Research Environment: https://bobbiensis.sib.swiss/.⬈#footnote-78

⁷⁹ Parker 1992, 10–12.⬈#footnote-79

⁸⁰ Parker 1992, 259–286; Egypt seems to be the other main provenance in the debate.⬈#footnote-80

⁸¹ See Gathercole 2013, 47–54 for evidence from other early Bible manuscripts.⬈#footnote-81

⁸² In Codex Puteanus (Paris lat. 5730) e.g. on fol. 22r ab urbe condita lib. xxi explic. incipit lib xxii feliciter (the folio is accessible online at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8470112j/f53); in Vergilius Romanus (Vatican lat. 3867) e.g. on fol. 33r vergili maronis georgica lib. I explic. incip. lib. II (accessible online at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.3867/0067); the Codex Mediceus (Laur. 39.1 + Vatican lat. 3225), datable to before 494, has e.g. vergili maronis bvcolicon liber explicit incipit georgicon lib. I feliciter. See Gathercole 2013, 70 for some further examples with references.⬈#footnote-82

⁸³ See Benkato 2017a for a more detailed investigation of their use in Iranian-language Manichaean texts as well as the manuscript references for the examples cited here; it is argued there that the Sogdian versions are likely calques of the Parthian and Middle Persian, while the (very sparsely attested) Old Uighur versions are calques of the Sogdian. The relevant parts of Old Uighur fragments are infrequently preserved, though nevertheless more examples would be expected. For the example cited here, see Von Le Coq 1922, 30–31; the page has now broken into two fragments which are described in Wilkens 2000, 52–54. This pattern of calques follows the assumed trajectory for eastern Manichaean literature in general, where Old Uighur literature was largely translated from Sogdian, and the Sogdian in turn from Middle Persian or Parthian (though there are also original compositions in all these languages).⬈#footnote-83

⁸⁴ One must remain somewhat agnostic about the early form of non-Manichaean books in Iranian languages: the earliest extant Zoroastrian manuscript, an Avestan codex, is only from the early thirteenth century, while virtually all other Zoroastrian Middle Persian and Avestan manuscripts are from the fifteenth century or later. Even the manuscripts considered to be archaic in format, though, display none of the defining features discussed in this paper. It must be noted as well that there has been relatively little research on Avestan codicology; but see Panaino 2002 and Durkin-Meisterernst 2019a, which compares the oldest Avesta codices to the Pahlavi Psalter and some Manichaean fragments, as well as to Syriac and Masoretic texts.⬈#footnote-84

⁸⁵ Barbati (2014; 2018) studies various codicological features of the Christian manuscripts from Turfan and suggests that the variation in aspects such as quire structure and quire marking imply that they were produced in different regions before being brought to Turfan. The ‘Pahlavi Psalter’ (a fragmentary codex in Middle Persian containing translations of the Psalms from Syriac) is of disputed date, possibly sixth–seventh century (its inclusion of the ecclesiastical Canons of Mar Abā, d. 552 ce, provides a terminus post quem), but in any case would be part of an eastern Christian manuscript tradition. Images of the Psalter are available at the Digitales Turfan Archiv: https://turfan.bbaw.de/dta/ps/dta_ps_index.htm.⬈#footnote-85

⁸⁶ Parker 1992, 16–21.⬈#footnote-86

⁸⁷ Parker 1922, 22.⬈#footnote-87

⁸⁸ It may be that the practice of running headers was more common in Greek manuscripts produced outside of Egypt, where the vast majority of pre-500 ce codices have been discovered (and where most of these were likely copied). Bezae, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus were all likely produced outside of Egypt.⬈#footnote-88

⁸⁹ Mundell Mango 1992, 164 notes that these earlier Syriac manuscripts typically have a header on every sixth page. See also Gathercole 2013, 54–58 for some further mention of headers.⬈#footnote-89

⁹⁰ For a selection of examples see Wright 1870, Vol. 1, 3–5, 73–75; Vol. 2, 417–418.⬈#footnote-90

⁹¹ They are not addressed in Buzi and Emmel 2015, nor are they a data category in the manuscript database of PATHs (Tracking Papyrus and Parchment Paths: An Archaeological Atlas of Coptic Literature), for which Paola Buzi is the PI: http://paths.uniroma1.it/atlas/manuscripts/.⬈#footnote-91

⁹² Lowe 1925; 1928. For the variance see remarks in Parker 1992, 22.⬈#footnote-92

⁹³ The multispectral image used in Fig. 7 was taken and processed by Kyle Huskin, as part of the “Recovery of Writing in Large Collections” Project at the University of Hamburg, Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures, and is reproduced here with permission. In Hoku software, capture image 19 (a fluorescence shot in which the object was excited with 450 nm blue light and captured through a Kodak Wratten R25 filter) was divided by image 27 (a fluorescence shot in which the object was excited with 400 nm ultraviolet light and captured through a Kodak Wratten O22 filter), which had been raised to a logarithmic power. The output image was also rotated, raised to a logarithmic power to increase the brightness and contrast, run through a median 3x3 filter to reduce sensor noise, and packed in an 8-bit format. To further improve visibility, the image was adjusted using the curves and exposure tools in GIMP 2.10. This research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy – EXC 2176 ‘Understanding Written Artefacts: Material, Interaction and Transmission in Manuscript Cultures’, project no. 390893796.⬈#footnote-93

⁹⁴ See Henning 1936, ibid.⬈#footnote-94

⁹⁵ M178 is a parchment bifolio containing a cosmogonical text in Sogdian; the header is continuous from recto to verso of each folio, but not continuous between the two folios as further folios are missing between them. The text reads (Ir-v) βʾt prw mγwn δyyn | ʾrtʾwspy’ẖ ‘…shall be in the whole Church (and) Righteousness…’, and (IIr–v) γwʾnwʾcyy wny | γmbnβryyt ‘…remission of sins to the ones weary of toil…’ (Henning 1948, 307). Digital images of M178 at the Digitales Turfan Archiv: https://turfan.bbaw.de/dta/m/dta_m0009.html. M98–99 are two continuous paper bifolios containing a cosmogonical text in Middle Persian, argued by Hutter to likely be part of the Šābuhragān. The header reads (M98Ir–v to M99Ir–v) ʾw mn yyšw‘przy[nd] | dbyr ‘y nwg ʾwd ʾqrwg || kym nbyšt pd pryẖ | ʾw hrwqyn rnzwrʾn ‘[Take pity] on me, Yīšō-Frazend | a new and inexperienced scribe || who has written this with love | and on all the troubled ones…’ (Hutter 1992, 8–23).⬈#footnote-95

⁹⁶ Allberry 1938, xix.⬈#footnote-96

⁹⁷ Allberry 1938, xxii–xxiii (description), 229–233 (edition).⬈#footnote-97

⁹⁸ As identified by Gardner 1996, 17.⬈#footnote-98

⁹⁹ Gardner 1996, 17 notes ‘Thus, in comparison to Allberry’s psalm-index, this text is a “list” of verses. Each line corresponds to the beginning of a verse, perhaps equal to the indented sections in the Medinet Madi edition of the Psalm-Book. However, in contrast to that fine copy, the text here was probably for "live" congregational usage. The beginning of each verse or refrain is provided to aid the memory.’⬈#footnote-99

¹⁰⁰ See Sundermann 2009, 240–252 for more on hymns.⬈#footnote-100

¹⁰¹ Initial edition and translation by Müller 1913; re-edition of lines 391–445 only, containing the 55 hymn-beginnings of the final and unknown category in Durkin-Meisterernst 2006, 2–5; see also Leurini 2017, 10–14. Reck 2005, 16, 90–91 notes that the group ‘Praise hymns’ probably corresponds to ‘Monday hymns’; she was able to find that quite a few of the Monday hymn-beginnings are preserved in full or in part in other fragments, although not corresponding to the order of M1. For codicological analysis of M1 in the context of illuminated manuscript fragments from Turfan, see Gulácsi 2005, 41, 200, 201. Black and white images of M1 are available online at the Digitales Turfan Archive: https://turfan.bbaw.de/dta/m/dta_m0001.html.⬈#footnote-101

¹⁰² M576 as a whole remains unedited; Reck 2005, 92–93 provides useful comments and the readings of some lines, as does Durkin-Meisterernst 2006, 10–11, and the text is presented and discussed in Gulácsi 2001, 16–17, 210. Image at the Digitales Turfan Archiv: https://turfan.bbaw.de/dta/m/dta_m0028.html. The verso contains an illumination which is discussed in Gulácsi 2005, 153–154. For O11075, the legible part is edited and translated in Kudara, Sundermann & Yoshida 1997, 129–131.⬈#footnote-102

¹⁰³ Durkin-Meisterernst 2008, 12. The reference to the melody to be used in singing a given hymn is very common (Sundermann 2009, 244).⬈#footnote-103

¹⁰⁴ See Reck 2005, 140–141. Notably, the hymns to be sung in the same melody are sometimes of different types, e.g. in M798b/3–5/ ‘Holy Spirit’, ‘Living Soul’, and ‘Bema’.⬈#footnote-104

¹⁰⁵ Durkin-Meisterernst 2008, 13. Allberry (1938, xxii) had already noticed the similarity to M1 but did not comment on it.⬈#footnote-105

¹⁰⁶ See Durkin-Meisterernst 2019a, 216, whose comparison between Avesta, Syriac, and Manichaeans texts suggests that “a general synchronism of the Sasanian period, possibly its latter half, is possible”.⬈#footnote-106

¹⁰⁷ See Gulacsi 2005, 61–64, for an initial survey of the evidence.⬈#footnote-107

¹⁰⁸ See, respectively, Ibscher apud Polotsky 1934, xiii and Gardner 2015, 8. For the Synaxeis, see Funk, Forthcoming.⬈#footnote-108

¹⁰⁹ See Ibscher apud Polotsky & Böhlig 1940, xiv and Ibscher apud Allberry 1938, xiv, respectively.⬈#footnote-109

¹¹⁰ Henrichs 1979, 345, 350–351.⬈#footnote-110

¹¹¹ Turner 1977, 55–64.⬈#footnote-111

¹¹² Buzi & Emmel 2015, 142–145.⬈#footnote-112

¹¹³ Buzi 2020, 134.⬈#footnote-113

¹¹⁴ Reference to the dominant size being 4 or 5 bifolia is usually made in passing, e.g. Wright 1870, Vol. 3, xxvi, Hatch 1946, 22–24.⬈#footnote-114

¹¹⁵ For quires in Christian manuscripts from Turfan, see Dickey 2013, 13-14.⬈#footnote-115

¹¹⁶ MacKenzie 1980, 288.⬈#footnote-116

¹¹⁷ Henning 1936, 3–7, Gulácsi 2005, 61–64, Gulácsi in Sims-Williams, Sheldon & Gulácsi 2022, 113–161.⬈#footnote-117

¹¹⁸ Boyce 1954, 25, 33–37.⬈#footnote-118

¹¹⁹ Sims-Williams 1985, 15–16.⬈#footnote-119

¹²⁰ Hunter & Coakley 2017, 1–3, 15.⬈#footnote-120

¹²¹ Ibscher apud Polotsky & Böhlig 1940, xiii–xiv; Gardner 2015, 8.⬈#footnote-121

¹²² Ibscher apud Allberry 1938, xiv.⬈#footnote-122

¹²³ Durkin-Meisterernst (2008, 6) suggests that one possible example may exist, but it is doubtful in the extreme.⬈#footnote-123

¹²⁴ See most recently Bagnall 2009, 70–90, esp. 88–89. The codex itself is a Roman rather than a Christian invention, developed from the prevalent use of wooden tablets for documentation (see Meyer 2007). Bagnall (2009, 83–90) argues cogently that its spread was a form of Romanization, and that Christians were not popularizers of the codex.⬈#footnote-124

¹²⁵ See Hurtado 2006; Bagnall 2009.⬈#footnote-125

¹²⁶ For overviews of the various hypotheses, see, e.g., Gamble 1995, 49–66; Hurtado 2006, 61–83; Bagnall 2009, 79–82. For a more recent hypothesis, see Larsen and Letteny 2019.⬈#footnote-126

¹²⁷ See for example Roberts and Skeat 1983; Hurtado 2006; Bagnall 2009. Several recent books on other aspects of early Christian texts do mention the Manichaeans. For example, Nongbri (2018, passim) simply discusses the Manichaean finds from Medinet Madi as ‘Christian’ or ‘early Christian’; Mugridge (2016), on the other hand explicitly groups the Manichaean texts from Kellis as Christian texts, given that the Manichaeans ‘saw themselves as heirs of Christian thought and practice in certain respects’ (2016, 4).⬈#footnote-127

¹²⁸ Although it is often assumed that they did: see footnote 10.⬈#footnote-128

¹²⁹ Hegemonius, Acta Archelai, 14.2–3, ed. Vermes 2001, 58.⬈#footnote-129

¹³⁰ See Shaki & Dandamayev 1995 for the Achaemenid period; also Dougherty 1928.⬈#footnote-130

¹³¹ On the codicology of the Qumran finds, see now Quick 2020.⬈#footnote-131

¹³² Contra Pedersen, who seems to assume that Manichaeans would have preferred the codex (cf. Pederson 2013, 16, on the Allberry Fragments; and 2013, 18 on Berlin Fragment P22364); he does not state a reason for this assumption, but presumably it is that they usually self-identified as Christians within the Roman Empire, and thus shared the Christian preference for the codex.⬈#footnote-132

¹³³ Ephrem, Prose Refutations, 126–127; discussed in Gulácsi 2015, 39–42. The evidence from Central Asia analyzed in Gulácsi 2015 suggests that it was later produced there as a scroll.⬈#footnote-133

¹³⁴ On P. Dura 24, now in the Beinecke Library at Yale University, see Parker, Taylor & Goodacre 1999. The text must have been copied before the destruction of the city in 256–257 ce.⬈#footnote-134

¹³⁵ Hugo Ibscher, appealing to but not citing ‘Berichten der arabischen Schriftsteller,’ curiously states that a report of gold and precious stones flowing from Manichaean books as they were burned shows that the ‘Urformat’ of the early Manichaean book must have been the codex, presumably under the assumption that the report is referring to a codex with a treasury binding (Ibscher apud Allberry 1938, xi). Ibscher must be referring to the account by Ibn al-Jawzi of a persecution during the reign of the caliph al-Muqtadir, which we discuss below. But this refers to events in the tenth century, not the third century ce. It is, though, the first published speculation on the original Manichaean book format.⬈#footnote-135

¹³⁶ On the basis of the terms for ‘book’ used in colophons to the Mandaean Ginza, Buckley (2010, 23–49) suggests that the format of the Ginza may have changed from roll (Mandaic šapta) to codex (sidra or later kdaba eda) around the seventh century ce.⬈#footnote-136

¹³⁷ On the other hand, page numbers, one of the few paratextual elements consistently found in surviving Western Afro-Eurasian manuscripts, are curiously absent from some of the Medinet Madi codices.⬈#footnote-137

¹³⁸ Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Muntaẓam fī tārīkh al-mamlūk wa-l-’umam, ed. Reeves 2011, 231.⬈#footnote-138

¹³⁹ For example, in the Turfan fragment M2 it is noted that Mar Ammo ‘knew the Parthian writing and tongue’ (phlwʾnyg dbyryy ʾwd ʿzwʾn dʾnyst), see Sundermann 2009, 224, 243, 260.⬈#footnote-139