THE BAPTISTS OF MANIS YOUTH AND THE ELCHASAITES*

The so-called Cologne Mani Codex (CMC)

1
and the Fihrist (Catalogue) of
al-Nadim, a tenth-century Islamic encyclopaedia,
2
report that Mani spent his
youth in a southern Babylonian community of baptists.
3
In the CMC, the
members of the community are just called 4, in the Fihrist they
are referred to as Mughtasilah, those who wash themselves. The baptists
regarded Alchasaios or al-Hasih as their 0( or rais. The Greek and
the Arabic word can mean founder but also leader. In the CMC, some
legendary stories about this 0( of the baptists are put into the mouth
of Mani.
The editors of the Mani Codex, Albert Henrichs and Ludwig Koenen,
argued that Alchasaios is a variant of the name Elchasai or Elxai
mentioned in patristic sources,
4
and, furthermore, that the baptists
considered this Elchasai/Alchasaios to be the very founder of their sect.
Indeed, in the editors opinion, these southern Babylonian baptists were
Elchasaites.
5
In The Revelation of Elchasai (1985), I expressed serious

* Apendix in: Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions (Nag
Hammadi and Manichaean Studies, 58), Leiden 2006, 170-184.
1
L. Koenen and C. Rmer, Der Klner Mani-Kodex. Abbildungen und diplomatischer
Text; R. Cameron and A.J. Dewey, The Cologne Mani Codex, Concerning the Origin of
his Body; excerpts in English transl by J.M. and S.N.C. Lieu in I. Gardner and S.N.C.
Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, chap. 2.
2
G. Flgel, Kitab al-Fihrist; B. Dodge, The Fihrist of al-Nadm.
3
The community, that is, in which his father Pattikios or Futtuq lived.
4
Hippolytus, Ref IX 13-17; Epiphanius, Pan 19, 30, and 53.
5
A. Henrichs and L. Koenen, Ein griechischer Mani-Codex, 135-60. In later studies
they are somewhat more prudent. See esp. A. Henrichs, Mani and the Babylonian
Baptists, 46f, and The Mani Codex Reconsidered, 356f.
2
doubts about the Elchasaite connection of the Babylonian baptists and
proposed that in the CMC, 0( means leader, as in other
Manichaean texts. In addition, I pointed out that references to the Book of
Elchasai do not occur in the Mani Codex and the Fihrist, and that there is
nothing in the information about the baptists that reminds us of the contents
of this book.
6

In this paper, I would like to come back once again to the question of
whether or not the baptists of Manis youth were Elchasaites. I am
challenged to do so by Reinhold Merkelbachs article, Die Tufer, bei
denen Mani aufwuchs.
7
His article is very much in line with the position of
the editors of the CMC and highly representative of the current approach to
the sources for Manis baptists and the Elchasaites.
8
It will therefore not be
necessary to discuss more reactions to my source-critical investigation.
Merkelbachs treatment of the relevant sources deviates from my
approach, and leads to substantially different results. I would like to find out
where our ways part and will try to explain why they do so. After observing
that my assessment of the baptist sect seems fallacious, Merkelbach states:

Ich habe versucht, die Probleme anhand des von Luttikhuizen so bequem
bereitgestellten Materials neu zu durchdenken und bin zu dem Schluss
gekommen, dass an dem Zusammenhang der Baptisten Manis mit Elchasai kein
Zweifel mglich ist. Die Argumente hierfr scheinen mir geradezu berwltigend:
ich mchte sie hier zusammenfassend darstellen.
9


Merkelbachs working method is as follows. First, he examines the patristic
reports of the Elchasaites, searching for parallels with Manichaean teachings

6
Pp. 162f. Cf. the discussion of my arguments in I. Gardner and S.N.C. Lieu,
Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, 33f.
7
In: P. Bryder (ed.), Manichaean Studies, 105-33. I. Gardner and S. Lieu, Manichaean
Texts, 35, n. 50, refer in assent to Merkelbachs contribution.
8
Cf. J. van Oort, Manichesme: nieuwe ontdekkingen, NTT 47 (1993), 21-36, esp. 30f;
S.N. Lieu, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994,
84-7; K. Rudolph, Jdische und christliche Tufertraditionen im Spiegel des Klner
Mani-Kodex, in id., Gnosis und sptantike Religionsgeschichte (NHMS 42), Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1996, 686-713; id., The Baptist Sects, in W. Horbury et al., The Cambridge
History of Judaism, III, The Early Roman Period, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999, 471-
500, there 483-92; S.C. Mimouni, Les elkasates: tats des questions et des recherches,
in P.J. Tomson and D. Lambers-Petry, The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient
Jewish and Christian Literature, Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003, 209-29. F. Stanley
Jones, The Book of Elchasai in its Relevance for Manichaean Institutions, Aram 16
(2004), 179-215.
9
Ibid., 107.
3
or customs. Where he finds a parallel, he argues that the baptists of Manis
youth must be the link between the Elchasaites and the Manichaeans, even if
there is no evidence that these baptists were familiar with the doctrine or
custom in question.
10
Merkelbach concludes:

Wenn man also die direkten Nachrichten ber die Mugtasila zusammennimmt mit
jenen Lehrstcken, die man fr sie erschliessen kann (aus dem Vergleich der
Nachrichten ber die Elchasaiten mit denen ber die Manicher), dann kann man
sich ein viel runderes Bild ber die Mugtasila machen: dann werden sie eine der
am besten bekannten christlichen Gemeinden aus der Zeit vor Konstantin; und vor
allem, dann knnen wir viel deutlicher sehen, von wo Mani gekommen ist.
11


Indeed, Merkelbachs thesis agrees with the position held by the editors of
the CMC. For instance, Henrichs and Koenen argued that Mani must have
become acquainted with the concept of the cyclic incarnation of the True
Prophet when he lived among the baptists as a young man, and that he
developed his idea of being the last incarnation of the Apostle of Light from
this allegedly baptist concept.
12
Note that this conclusion is not based on the
two reports of Manis baptists since these reports are completely silent about
their Christology.
The first part of this essay will be concerned with two questions: 1.
can Manis concept of the repeated manifestation of the True Prophet be
traced back to the Book of Elchasai, and 2. did Mani become familiar with
this concept through the Babylonian baptists? In the second part of the essay,
I will focus on the water rites of the baptists and the extent to which these
rites can be defined as Elchasaite.


The cyclic incarnation of the True Prophet

Was Manis concept of the cyclic incarnation of the light-messenger inspired
by an Elchasaite type of Christology? My answer is twofold. I do not doubt

10
According to Merkelbach, ibid., 110, we often (manchmal) face the following
situation: (a) Ein einziges Lehrstck oder ein Ritus ist fr Elchasai bezeugt, entweder fr
sein Buch oder auch durch Nachrichten ber die von ihm abhngigen Sekten. (b) ber
die Mugtasila ist in dieser Hinsicht nichts bekannt. (c) Bei den Manichern ist dasselbe
Lehrstck aufzufinden, welches auch fr Elchasai bezeugt ist. In einem solchen Fall ist
der Schluss praktisch sicher, dass die Mugtasila dasselbe Lehrstck vertreten haben: denn
sie bilden ja das Bindeglied zwischen Elchasai und dem Manichismus.
11
Ibid., 110.
12
ZPE 5 (1970), 139f.
4
that the relevant Manichaean idea developed from a Jewish Christian
background. What I do doubt, however, is that this originally Jewish
Christian idea was included in the Book of Elchasai. This is not an
unimportant issue, because Merkelbach explicitly states that he considers a
tradition as Elchasaite if it can be traced back to the Book of Elchasai.
13
The
question at stake, therefore, is whether we have evidence that speculations
about repeated appearances of Christ were part of the books message.
Our primary sources for the Book of Elchasai are Hippolytus of Rome
and Epiphanius of Salamis (above, n. 4). In addition, Eusebiuss Church
History includes a brief report by Origen which to an extent agrees with
Hippolytus.
14
These sources are far from transparent and consequently it is
useful to preface the discussion of the relevant Christological ideas with
some brief source-critical observations.

1. Hippolytus
Hippolytus deals with a contemporary Elchasaite missionary, Alcibiades,
who came from Apamea in Syria. Apparently, Hippolytus had no first hand
knowledge of Elchasai or the mysterious book connected with this name.
15

The heresiologist reports that Alcibiades came to Rome with a book that he
claimed had been revealed by a huge angel:

It had been revealed by an angel whose height was 24 schoeni that is 96 miles
and whose girth was 4 schoeni; from shoulder to shoulder he was 6 schoeni; his
foorprints were three and a half schoeni long that is fourteen miles , the
breadth bing one and a half () With him was a female whose dimensions, he
said, accorded with those mentioned, the male being the Son of God and the
female was called Holy Spirit.
16


According to Hippolytus, Alcibiades stated that a certain Elchasai, had
received the book somewhere in Parthia, and that this righteous man had
transmitted the book to someone called Sobiai. As far as the name Sobiai
is concerned, we might be dealing with a misunderstanding on the part of
Hippolytus. It is not unlikely that what Alcibiades actually stated was that

13
Ibid., 109: Nur wenn fr einen speziellen Zug ausdrcklich bezeugt ist, dass er im
Buch des Elchasai gestanden hat, dann wird man annehmen drfen, dass alle
elchasaitischen Gruppen in diesem Punkt zusammentrafen, da sie ja alle die Offenbarung
des Elchasai zugrundelegten.
14
HE VI 38. All other patristic sources are dependent on Hippolytus, Epiphanius and/or
Eusebius. Cf. The Revelation of Elchasai, 152.
15
Alcibiades treated the book as a secret text. Cf. Ref IX 17.1.
16
Ref IX 13.2-3.
5
Elchasai had transmitted the book to the Sobiai or baptists
17
(to the Syrian
baptists represented by Alcibiades?).
It is highly significant that following his introduction of Alcibiades
and the mysterious book, Hippolytus immediately draws attention to the
second baptism which he (obviously Alcibiades) decreed for Christians
who had committed a grave sin.
18
Hippolytus report does not give us any
reason to assume that this second baptism for Christian sinners was part of
the message of the book. On the contrary, the heresiologist suggests that the
rebaptism of Christian sinners was an innovation introduced by Alcibiades
when he was in Rome.
At the time of Alcibiades arrival in Rome, the Roman church did not
yet have an institutional possibility for the remission of grave sins
committed by baptised Christians (the later sacrament of penance). In the
preceding sections of his book IX, Hippolytus speaks at length of a
controversy about the position of Christian sinners in the Roman church.
Alcibiades promise of remission of sins even to notorious sinners was
seized upon by Hippolytus as an opportunity to continue his polemics
against Calixtus, his former rival in the bishops see of Rome. In his
refutation of Calixtus, Hippolytus tries to explain why the Catholic bishops
church had so many members compared to his own community. He charges
Calixtus with having admitted sinners into his school by promising them
remission of their sins.
19
In the subsequent refutation of Alcibiades,
Hippolytus states that the idea of a baptism for the remission of grievous sins
was suggested to this heretic by the teachings of Calixtus. In this way
Hippolytus made the Catholic bishop accountable for what he considered the
most objectionable aspect of Alcibiades heresy. Actually, the refutation of
Alcibiades is nothing more than a digression added to Hippolytus bitter
polemics against Calixtus.
In the second part of his report, Hippolytus summarises what he
designates as some main points of his statements.
20
Although most
scholars suppose that the heresiologist refers to statements made by Elchasai
in the mysterious book, there can be no shadow of doubt, in my opinion, that
the reference is to Alcibiades.
21
The problem is that the names of both

17
W. Brandt, Elchasai, 42, and the literature mentioned in The Revelation of Elchasai,
61, n. 28.
18
Ref IX 13.4.
19
Ref IX 12.20-26.
20
Ref IX 14, introduced in 13.6.
21
See The Revelation of Elchasai, 47, n. 7, and my essays The Book of Elchasai: A
Jewish Apocalyptic Writing, not a Christian Church Order, SBL Seminar Papers 38
6
Elchasai and Alcibiades are only mentioned at the beginning and end of this
refutation. However, because the heresiologist speaks about a contemporary
of his and because the heresy refuted in this chapter is closely related by
Hippolytus to the tenet of Calixtus mentioned before (Calixtus allegedly
indulgent attitude towards sinners),
22
we must assume that he means
Alcibiades. It is in this connection his account of some of the main
teachings of Alcibiades that Hippolytus mentions the relevant
Christological ideas:

He says that Christ was a man like all (others), and that he was not born for the
first time when he was born of a virgin, but that already earlier and many times
again, having been begotten and being born, he appeared and came into existence,
thus going through several births and transmigrating from body to body.
23


In the third and last part of his report, Hippolytus comes back to the second
baptism introduced by Alcibiades and also reports the therapeutic water rites
prescribed by Alcibiades. I will discuss these passages below.
As to Alcibiades Christology: are we to trace the relevant ideas back
to the Book of Elchasai?
24
This is at least open to discussion. Why should
we assume that everything taught by Alcibiades in Rome came directly from
this book?
25
It is quite possible, as we will see below, to connect these ideas
with the Syrian type of Jewish Christianity represented by Alcibiades.


(1999), 405-25 (esp. 410, n. 17) and Elkesaites and their Book, in P. Luomanen and A.
Marjanen (eds), A Compendium to Second-Century Heretics, Leiden: Brill, 2005, 335-
64 (esp. 338f).
22
Ref IX 13.4-5: He ventured to achieve these knaveries starting from the already
mentioned tenet which Calixtus had brought forward. For perceiving that many were
pleased with such a promise, he understood that the time was ripe to make the attempt.
Yet we resisted this man too, and we did not permit many to be deceived for long,
demonstrating that this was the work of a spurious mind and the invention of a bumptious
heart, and that he, like a wolf, had risen up against many stray sheep which Calixtus by
his misguidance had scattered abroad.
23
Ref IX 14.1. Cf. the parallel report in Ref X 29.2. For the relationship between book X
and the main reports in I-IX see J. Frickel, Die Apophasis megalein Hippolyts
Refutatio, 49-74. Curiously enough, the second baptism is not mentioned at all in Ref X
29, although Hippolytus considered it the most dangerous and objectionable aspect of the
heresy in question.
24
Merkelbach, ibid., 116: Diese Vorstellung ist auch fr das Buch des Elchasai
bezeugt.
25
At least the second baptism for Christian sinners was introduced by Alcibiades (see
above).
7
2. Epiphanius
In Epiphanius reports we encounter several trans-Jordan sects allegedly
influenced by Elxai or Elxaios: Ossaeans (Ossenes), Nasaraeans,
Nazoraeans, Sampsaeans (Sampsites, Sampsenes) or Elkesaeans, and
Ebionites (Ebionaeans). It is, however, questionable to what extent we can
trust the connections which Epiphanius finds between the Elchasaite book
and these Jewish and Jewish-Christian sects. For Henrichs and Koenen, and
also for Merkelbach, however, this problem does not exist for they take
Epiphanius reports for granted. I do not intend to discuss systematically the
rather complicated issue of the relationships detected or hypothesised by
Epiphanius.
26
I will try to focus on the Christological ideas which the
Church Father attributes to Elxai and to some of the aforementioned sects,
notably the Ebionites and the Sampsaeans/Elkesaeans. I start from two
passages in Epiphanius report on the Ebionites:

At first this Ebion (the putative founder of the sect), as I said,
27
determined that
Christ was from the seed of a man, Joseph. But from a certain time up to now
among his followers different things are told about Christ, since they have turned
their minds to chaotic and impossible things. I suppose that perhaps after Elxaios
joined them the false prophet <whom I mentioned before> in connection with
the so-called Sampsenes and Ossenes and Elkesaeans they tell some fantasy
about Christ and about the Holy Spirit, in the same way as he did.
28

For some of them say that Christ is also Adam, the first man created and
breathed into by Gods inspiration. But others among them say that he is from
above and that he was created before all () that he comes into the world
whenever he wishes, as he also came in Adam and appeared to the patriachs
putting on a body ()
29


Epiphanius writes that the Ebionites used to endorse the well-known
adoptionist idea of Christ as the son of Joseph, and that he supposed

26
Following several predecessors, F. Stanley Jones rightly characterizes Epiphanius as
doctor confusus ( The Genre of the Book of Elchasai, in A. tzen, Historische
Wahrheit und theologische Wissenschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996, 87-104.)
27
Pan 30.2.2: First he (Ebion) said that Christ was born from human intercourse and the
seed of a man, Joseph.
28
Pan 19.4.1-2: Next he (Elxai) describes Christ as some power, of whom he also
indicates the dimensions: his length is twenty-four schoeni, approximately ninety-six
miles, and his breadth is six schoeni, twenty-four miles () And (he says) that there is
also the Holy Spirit, a female being, similar to Christ, as a statue extending above the
clouds, and standing between two mountains. Cf. Pan 30.17.6-7 (quoted below); 53.1.9;
Hippolytus, Ref IX 13.2-3.
29
Pan 30.3.1-6.
8
( :4) that they changed their ideas about Christ under the
influence of Elxai, and that since then they had been telling fantastic stories
about Christ. Later on in his report on the Ebionites, the heresiologist writes
something similar:

After some time, when his (Ebions) followers had joined Elxai, they retained
from Ebion circumcision and the Sabbath and the customs, but from Elxai the
fantasy, so as to suppose that Christ is some man-like figure, invisible to men,
ninety miles long, that is twenty-four schoeni, the breadth is six schoeni, twenty-
four miles, and the thickness is of some other dimension. Opposite to him stands
also the Holy Spirit, invisible, in the form of a female, and having the same size.
30


How could it occur to Epiphanius that the Ebionites changed their opinion
about Christ after Elxai joined them? In agreement with other scholars,
31
I
assume that the Church Father combined two groups of sources: early
heresiological reports about the Ebionites (mainly Irenaeus and Eusebius
32
),
on the one hand, and authentic documents which for some reason or other
he considered to be Ebionite. The greater part of the documents to which
Epiphanius himself refers, first of all the Periodoi Petrou,
33
do not survive
but they must have been closely related to the extant pseudo-Clementine
writings.
Obviously, Epiphanius detected striking differences between the
beliefs of the Ebionites in his patristic sources and those in his new
documents, notably with regard to Christ. According to his patristic sources,
the Ebionites believed that Christ was a man, the son of Joseph, whereas in
his new sources, Christ came from above into Adam and others, and so
appeared at different times. The latter idea, the concept of the True Prophet
Adam-Christ, can indeed be found in the pseudo-Clementine writings.
34

Indeed Epiphanius states in Pan 30.3.2 that he just believed or
supposed that the Ebionites changed their opinions about Christ after they

30
Pan 30.17.5-6.
31
A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects, Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1973, 28-38; G.A. Koch, A Critical Investigation of Epiphanius Knowledge of
the Ebionites.
32
See Irenaeus, AH III 11.7 and 21.1; Eusebius, HE III 27.
33
Pan 30.15.1-3.
34
Cf. esp. Hom III 20.2: no other possesses the spirit but he who from the beginning of
the world, changing his forms and his names, runs through universal time until, anointed
for his toils by the mercy of God, he comes to his own time and will have rest for ever.
See the detailed discussion by G. Strecker, Das Judenchristentum in den
Pseudoklementinen, 145-53.
9
came under the influence of Elxai. If this supposition were correct, it would
mean that it was Elxai who taught the Ebionites about the True Prophet who
first appeared in Adam. It will become increasingly clear, however, that this
is a highly questionable hypothesis, pace Merkelbach. For the time being I
note that we do not find any reference to Elxai/Elchasai in the surviving
pseudo-Clementine texts.
35

Because Epiphanius supposed that the Ebionites adopted these
Christological speculations from Elxai, he further hypothesised that all the
groups which in his opinion were influenced by Elxai must be familiar with
these speculations. This might be the reason why we find a quite similar
report of Christological speculations in his report on the Transjordan
Sampsaeans or Elkesaeans.
36
Epiphanius was convinced that the
Sampsaeans/Elkesaeans regarded Elxai as their teacher and that this teacher
was the author of the mysterious book. With respect to this issue Merkelbach
states: An mehreren () Stellen des Epiphanius wird ber die Ebioner
und Sampser, die beide mit den Elkesern zusammenfielen, berichtet:
Christus sei zum erstenmal in Adam erschienen.
37
In reality, as we have
seen, it was just Epiphanius conjecture that at some time Elxai had joined
the early Ebionites, and that these later Ebionites (pseudo-Clementine
Jewish Christians) owed their speculations about Christ to him.

3. A Syrian Christology?
To return to the Christology of Alcibiades reported by Hippolytus the idea
of the repeated incarnation of Christ I have already mentioned that there is
no decisive reason to assume that this Christology stems from the Book of
Elchasai. It is likewise possible that these speculations developed in the
Syrian Jewish-Christian environment represented by Alcibiades. The latter
solution would mean that the partial (!) agreement between Alcibiades
Christological ideas and those of Epiphanius new documents (early versions
of the pseudo-Clementine writings) can be explained in a different way: the
common background is not the book of Elchasai but a Syrian type of Jewish
Christianity.
In my hypothesis it is still possible that Mani borrowed his idea about
the cyclic incarnation of the Apostle of Light from the Babylonian baptists
of his youth. However, in this case, the Babylonian baptists were familiar
with this Christological speculation not through the Book of Elchasai but

35
G.A. Koch, A Critical Investigation, 294.
36
Pan 53.1.8-9.
37
Ibid., 120.
10
rather through their affiliation with the Syrian Jewish Christianity
represented by Alcibiades and early versions of the pseudo-Clementine
writings. But I repeat that the CMC and the Fihrist are silent about this
doctrine and, for this reason, we cannot exclude more direct connections
between Mani (or his early followers) and the Syrian Jewish Christians in
question.
It might be more difficult to determine the source or background of
the Manichaean doctrine of the cyclic revelations of the light-messenger
than Merkelbach and the editors of the CMC believe. The possible historical
and literary connections between the Syrian Jewish Christianity attested by
the pseudo-Clementines, and early Manichaeans deserve more scholarly
attention than they have had so far.

Water rites

Now I turn to what was apparently the distinct feature of the community in
which Mani was reared. The members of the community probably celibate
men
38
washed themselves daily because, as the CMC informs us, they
expected the resurrection of the body.
39
Moreover, they washed their food
before it was consumed.
40
Compare this to the patristic reports about the
water rites of Alcibiades and those of the trans-Jordan sects which according
to Epiphanius were influenced by the author of the mysterious book.
I argued above that the greater part of Hippolytus report does not
relate to the contents of the book connected with the name of Elchasai but
to doctrines and prescriptions of the Syrian Jewish-Christian missionary
Alcibiades. But whether or not the water rites were quoted by Alcibiades
from the Mesopotamian book or belonged to his Syrian Jewish Christianity,
the point is that we do not find specific agreement between the rites
mentioned by Hippolytus and the rites of the Babylonian baptists. On the one
hand, Hippolytus reports a second baptism for the remission of grievous
sins, first of all sexual trespasses (not mentioned in the two sources about the
community of Manis youth). On the other hand, Hippolytus quotes
therapeutic water rites: any man or woman, boy or girl who was bitten or
touched by a rabid dog, had to go down fully clothed into a river or a

38
A. Henrichs, Mani and the Babylonian baptists, 54; id., The Cologne Mani Codex
reconsidered, 365.
39
Cf. CMC 87.2-6.
40
CMC 80.1-3; 80.23-83.13; 87.2-6; 88.13-15. Cf. Fihrist transl. Dodge II 811: They
observe ablution as a rite and wash everything which they eat.
11
spring.
41
It is possible that the bite or touch of a rabid dog was understood as
a metaphor of sexual desire,
42
but we are obviously not dealing with a daily
water rite (a regular bath to be taken by every member of the community).
Hippolytus adds that sufferers of consumption and demonic possession were
summoned by Alcibiades to immerse themselves in cold water up to forty
times during seven days.
43
Considering the wide spread use of all kinds of
water rites in the ancient world and elsewhere, we can hardly assume a
specific connection between the second baptism for grievous sinners and the
therapeutic immersions reported by Hippolytus, on the one hand, and the
daily ritual ablutions of the Babylonian baptists, on the other.
Epiphanius reports ritual immersions, but he does so in his account of
the Ebionites. As we have seen, the heresiologist surmises that the supposed
later (pseudo-Clementine) Ebionites were influenced by Elxai, but it is
significant that he does not hold Elxai responsible for their water rites. In
Pan 30.2-4 he writes:

He (Ebion!) says that a man has to wash himself with water every day, after he
had intercourse with a woman and left her, if there is enough water available
either of the sea or of other waters. And likewise when he meets someone
44
when
he comes up from the immersion and the baptism with water, he returns to wash
himself in the same way, several times and fully clothed.

Apart from the fact that Epiphanius does not trace these water rites to Elxai
but to Ebion, they do not seem to presuppose the celibate life which was
probably practiced by the baptists of Manis youth. Incidentally, the fact that
Epiphanius does not attribute the Ebionite water rites to Elxai suggests that
he did not find a prescription about daily baptisms in his source on the
book.
45



41
Ref IX 15.4-6.
42
E. Peterson, Die Behandlung der Tollwut.
43
Ref IX 15.4-16.1.
44
From the preceding context it appears that someone from the Gentiles is meant.
45
In Pan 19.3.7, Epiphanius quotes a metaphorical saying: Children, do not go toward
the sight of fire, for you shall err. This is an error, because you see it quite near and it is
far away. Do not go toward the sight of it but rather go to the voice of water. It is
possible to explain this ambiguous saying in the light of the anti-cultic ideas of some
trans-Jordan sects and their introduction of water rites in substitution for burnt offerings,
as Epiphanius does (for a polemical reason, see Pan 19.3.6), but other explanations are
also possible: a rejection of martyrdom? an allusion to sexual desire (cf. ps.-Clem. Hom
XI 26.4: Flee to the water, for that alone can extinguish the violence of fire. He who will
not come to it, still bears the spirit of passion)?
12
Interim conclusion

What did the convent-like community in southern Babylonia have to do with
Elchasai and the Elchasaites? First of all, their ritual ablutions are hardly
comparable to the second baptism and the water rites prescribed by
Alcibiades to Christian sinners and to sufferers of various diseases,
respectively, and we noted that the ritual immersions of the Ebionites are not
traced back by Epiphanius to Elxai but to Ebion.
In my opinion, the Christological ideas held by Alcibiades and some
Transjordan sects do not stem from the book
46
but have their background in
a Syrian form of Jewish Christianity (indirectly attested by the surviving
versions of the pseudo-Clementines
47
). It should also be observed that the
CMC and the Fihrist are silent about the Christological beliefs of the Jewish-
Christian baptists.
It is possible that Mani owed his idea of the cyclic incarnation of the
light-messenger to the Babylonian baptists but this hypothesis cannot be
based on the extant sources. If (!) the baptists were familiar with this
Christological speculation, we could explain this on the assumption that they
were remotely related to the Syrian Jewish Christianity attested by
Alcibiades (in Hippolytus) as well as by the pseudo-Clementines. There is
nothing in the extant sources that warrants the assumption that they
borrowed their possible (!) Christological ideas from the book of Elchasai.
48


Elchasai and Elxai-Alchasaios/al-Hasih/lxs

Strikingly, both the CMC and the Fihrist mention a baptist leader (the
founder of the sect?) Alchasaios/al-Hasih. The discovery by W. Sundermann
of the name lxs in an Iranian papyrus fragment of what seems to be an

46
Epiphanius must be right in stating that the author of the book was a Jew. He quotes
the book in the first part of his voluminous work devoted to the Jewish heresies (Pan 1-
20); in Pan 19.1.5 he writes: He was of Jewish origin and his ideas were Jewish, but he
did not live according to the Law.
47
Indirectly, because the Jewish Christian sources and/or early versions of the pseudo-
Clementine books are lost. Their contents can only hypothetically be reconstructed from
the surviving texts.
48
With reference to Merkelbach, I. Gardner and S. N.C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts, 34f,
state: if the search for Elchasaite influences on Mani is widened () there is much to be
found. Both sects (the Elchasaites and the Babylonian baptists) for instance placed great
emphasis on () the cyclical reappearance of Christ. This might be true but the question
is whether we should explain these possible agreement from the book of Elchasai.
13
autobiographical account of Manis youth makes this even more intriguing.
49

How should we relate the three versions of this name to our patristic reports
about the Elchasaites
50
and their book? It might be helpful to distinguish
three historical phenomena:
1. The book of Elchasai.
51
In all likelihood it was a Jewish apocalyptic
book written in Aramaic in Mesopotamia-Parthia in 116 C.E. The book was
translated into Greek before 230.
52

2. Two groups of Jewish-Christian missionaries (probably baptists
53
)
who possessed a Greek version of the book. They appeared in the Gentile-
Christian churches of Rome and Palestine.
54
Their Jewish-Christianity
(minus the book of Elchasai!) is indirectly attested in the pseudo-Clementine
books and more directly by Epiphanius who used earlier versions or sources
of the pseudo-Clementines for his reports of the Ebionites (Pan 30) and
some other Transjordan sects.
55

3. Baptist communities in Transjordan regions and in Southern
Babylonia who referred to a teacher Elxai/Alchasaios/al-Hasih (lxs). In the
CMC and the Fihrist, Alchasaios/al-Hasih is mentioned as a leader (or the
founder?) of the third-century Babylonian sect of baptists in which Mani was

49
Iranische Lebensbeschreibungen Manis, 129f; Mitteliranische manichische Texte
kirchengeschichtlichen Inhalts, 19. Note, however, that the text is badly mutilated and
that the relevant letters occur without readable context.
50
Elchasaites is a modern designation. Origens sermon in Eusebius speaks of
Helkesaites; Epiphanius mentions a (fourth-century) sect of Elkesaeans (another
name of the Sampsaeans).
51
In the early sources (Hippolytus and Epiphanius), Elchasai and Elxai are spelled
with an etha, not an epsilon, as Gardner and Lieu seem to assume (Manichaean Texts, 34;
cf. S.N. Lieu, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia, 86). I endorse the well-known hypothesis
that the name Elchasai originally belonged to the huge male angel (hayil kesay,
Hidden Power) who in Epiphanius source on the book was described as a power
(Pan 19.4.1), invisible to men (30.17.6).
52
Cf. The Revelation of Elchasai, 194-208.
53
Sobiai? Cf. Hippolytus, Ref. IX 13.1 (discussed above). Alcibiades prescribed several
therapeutical immersions apart from a second baptism for the remission of grievous sins
committed by Christians. The brief report of Origen-Eusebius (HE VI 38) does not report
baptist rites.
54
According to Hippolytus (Ref IX 13.1), the leader of the group in Rome, Alcibiades,
came from Apamea in Syria.
55
That the the group of Alcibiades was related to the Jewish Christianity of the pseudo-
Clementines (Epiphanius later Ebionites) is suggested first of all by a comparison of
the Christology of the pseudo-Clementine books and Epiphanius new sources for the
Ebionites with that of Alcibiades and his group (see above).
14
reared. Epiphanius informs us that Elxai was the teacher of a fourth century
Transjordan baptist
56
sect of Sampsaeans/Elkesaeans.
57

It is very difficult to decide whether Alcibiades in mentioning a
certain righteous man, Elchasai, who would have received the book from
Seres in Parthia
58
(Hippolytus, Ref IX 13.1), refers to the same religious
authority. First of all, for Hippolytus, Elchasai was a a wholly obscure
figure.
59
Who Elchasai was in the mind of Alcibiades, is likewise unclear. At
least Alcibiades did not regard him as the author of the book. In his view,
Elchasai received the book, apparently in its complete form. It is quite
possible that Alcibiades thought of the origin and the character of the book
in essentially the same way as the Helkesaites did who, according to Origen,
claimed that the book had fallen from heaven.
60
We have no indication that
Alcibiades referred to teachings of Elchasai which were not contained in
the book connected with this name.
The religious authority Elchasai-Elxai-Alchasaios/al-Hasih emerges
from the extant sources as a completely legendary figure. It is even unclear
whether the various names refer to the same figure. According to Alcibiades,
Elchasai received the book somewhere in Parthia. According to
Epiphanius, the book was written by the Transjordan teacher Elxai. He
reports that the fourth-century Sampsaeans/Elkesaeans appealed to this
teacher, and he supposed that Ebionites changed their ideas about Christ
after Elxai joined them. Furthermore he writes that Elxai had a brother,
Jexai, who also wrote a book (Pan 53.1.3; cf. 191.4) and that two female
descendants of Elxai were worshipped as goddesses in his (Epiphanius)
own days (53.2 and 5-6; cf. Pan 19.2.4-5). In the CMC, Alchasaios is
polemically presented by Mani-Baraies as an authoritative baptist leader (the
sects founder?) who converted to essential Manichaean insights.
Alcibiades-Hippolytus, Origen-Eusebius and Epiphanius refer to the book
and quote from its contents but like the CMC and the Fihrist the patristic

56
Pan 53.4: They pretend to honour God by using certain baptisms, 53.7: Water is
revered by them and they take it for a god, asserting more or less that life comes from it.
57
The heresiologist was probably wrong in hypothesizing that this Transjordan teacher
was the author of the Mesopotamian-Jewish book (see above).
58
Cf. The Revelation of Elchasai, 60.
59
In IX 4, he characterizes Alcibiades activity in Rome as the recent appearance of the
strange demon Elchasai; in IX 17.2 he qualifies Alcibiades as the most amazing
interpreter of the wretched Elchasai; here he also considers the possibility that Elchasai
lived at the time of the Egyptian sages; in X 29.1 he suggests that the heretics in question
composed the book and called it after a certain Elchasai.
60
In Eusebius, HE VI 38.
15
sources are silent about the specific ideas of a teacher Elchasai/ Elxai/
Alchasaios.
Above, I proposed that the Syrian Jewish-Christianity represented by
Alcibiades in Rome might be related to the Jewish Christianity of the early
pseudo-Clementines and Epiphanius Ebionites. This hypothesis is mainly
based an a comparison of the Christology of Alcibiades and his group with
that of the pseudo-Clementines and the later Ebionites (who did not
possess the book!). It is quite possible, as we have seen, that the baptists of
Manis youth were somehow related to this Syrian- Transjordan Jewish
Christianity, and, furthermore, that Mani borrowed his idea of the repeated
manifestation of the Apostle of Light from these Jewish Christians. But this
does not make them Elchasaites.