Changes

----

----

CATHARS, ALBIGENSIANS, and BOGOMILS (Focusing on the possible influence of Manichaean ideas among these sects.) The commonly held view that late classical Manichaeism experienced a revival in the eleventh century, and that in the three and half centuries between 1000 and 1350 it spread in Europe, where its followers were known as Cathars, has often been repeated both in scholarly and popular accounts. The notion itself goes back to the Middle Ages and ‘Manichaean’ was used as a label for heretics from about the year 1000 onwards. The medieval historian–usually a monk or a cleric– interpreted this in terms of a universal conspiracy of Manichaeans, led by Satan. Manichaeism is said to have been passed via the Paulicians and the Bogomils to re-emerge in the European Cathars but, as we shall see, this supposed historical transmission is difficult to demonstrate.

CATHARS, ALBIGENSIANS, and BOGOMILS (Focusing on the possible influence of Manichaean ideas among these sects.) The commonly held view that late classical Manichaeism experienced a revival in the eleventh century, and that in the three and half centuries between 1000 and 1350 it spread in Europe, where its followers were known as Cathars, has often been repeated both in scholarly and popular accounts. The notion itself goes back to the Middle Ages and ‘Manichaean’ was used as a label for heretics from about the year 1000 onwards. The medieval historian–usually a monk or a cleric– interpreted this in terms of a universal conspiracy of Manichaeans, led by Satan. Manichaeism is said to have been passed via the Paulicians and the Bogomils to re-emerge in the European Cathars but, as we shall see, this supposed historical transmission is difficult to demonstrate.

Up to 1930, our knowledge of Manichaeism was based mainly on information from its opponents, such as the great Apostolic Father, Augustine (q.v.; 354-430). Since 1930, many authentic Manichaean sources have been found, mainly in Egypt. These have made it possible to study Manichaeism without relying on the interpretations of the Church Fathers. The results have raised questions about the supposed radical character of Manichaean dualism (Stroumsa, pp. 141-53; Drijvers, pp. 99-125; Tardieu, pp. 262-71; Koenen, p. 257). Some researchers have even ventured to claim that Manichaean texts allow both a dualistic and a monotheistic interpretation (Bianchi, p.15).

Up to 1930, our knowledge of Manichaeism was based mainly on information from its opponents, such as the great Apostolic Father, Augustine (q.v.; 354-430). Since 1930, many authentic Manichaean sources have been found, mainly in Egypt. These have made it possible to study Manichaeism without relying on the interpretations of the Church Fathers. The results have raised questions about the supposed radical character of Manichaean dualism (Stroumsa, pp. 141-53; Drijvers, pp. 99-125; Tardieu, pp. 262-71; Koenen, p. 257). Some researchers have even ventured to claim that Manichaean texts allow both a dualistic and a monotheistic interpretation (Bianchi, p.15).