The sources that say that Mani claimed to be the “Seal of the Prophets” (khātam an-nabīyyīn) are all Islamic ones. Surviving Manichean literature contains no such reference. To wit:
The Persian polymath al-Bīrūnī claims in the Kitāb al-Āthār al-Bāqiyah, a work from 1000 AD, that:
[In the Gospel of Mani] Mani says that he is the Paraclete announced by the Messiah, and that he is the seal of the prophets.
But al-Bīrūnī is paraphrasing here, not directly quoting the Gospel. He is likely using the Qur’anic term to translate the Manichean concept of Mani being the last in a series of divine apostles. The same goes for ‘Abd al-Jabbār, a Persian contemporary of al-Bīrūnī who also paraphrased Manichean works as claiming that Mani was the “Seal of the Prophets.”
2) Ibn al-Murtaḍā, a thirteenth-century Arab scholar, reports that:
And [the Manichean priest] Yazdānbakht declares in his book that Adam was the first prophet, then Seth, then Noah, and the Buddha was sent to India, and Zoroaster to Persia, and Jesus to the West; then Mani the Paraclete, Seal of the Prophets.
But Yazdānbakht lived in Baghdad in the early ninth century and even had an Arabic name (Abū ‘Alī Rajā’ ibn Yazdānbakht), so it seems more likely that the priest was using Islamic terminology for an Islamicate audience.
3) The Persian scholar Shahrastānī claims in the Kitāb al-Milal wa’l-Niḥal, another eleventh-century work, that:
[Mani prophesied that] and then must come the Seal of the Prophets in the land of the Arabs.
This is obviously Islamic apologetics, and not even a reference to Mani. So is the earliest documented use of the term khātam an-nabīyyīn indeed from the Qur’an? No, because Manicheanism does in fact use the “seal” metaphor widely. It just doesn’t mean the same thing as it does in Islam. Manichean seal symbolism refers generally to 1) discipline, i.e. sealing the passions and 2) confirmation, i.e. a seal of authenticity.
We have the most detailed account of Manichean seal symbolism from St. Augustine, who was a follower of Mani in his youth. In his De Moribus Manichaeorum, Augustine addresses his ex-correligionists:
Let us turn our attention to the three seals [signacula] which you esteem so highly among your moral practices and boast so much about. What are these seals? The mouth, the hand, and the breast. And what do they signify? That man should be pure and innocent in mouth, hands, and breast, we are told… The mouth should be understood as referring to all the senses located in the head, while by the hand is meant every action, and by the breast, every provocative lust.
And from the rest of Augustine’s critique, we learn that the Manicheans used the concept of the Seal to mean ascetic discipline against the evils of the flesh. The “seal of the mouth” means to seal the mouth shut so that unclean foods cannot be eaten; the “seal of the hand” means to seal the hands still so that evil acts cannot be done; the “seal of the heart” means to seal the heart’s passions so that wild sexual desires cannot be contemplated. The seal symbolizes prevention and discipline, not finality as in Islam.
From the Coptic Manichean Psalms, an actual Manichean source written in the third or fourth century, we have the following references:
Let us seal our mouth that we may find the Father and seal our hands that we may find the Son, and guard our purity that we may find the Holy Spirit… The seal of the mouth for the sign of the Father, the peace of the hands for the sign of the Son, the purity of virginity for the sign of the Holy Spirit.
This is a direct corroboration of Augustine’s account of seals symbolizing ascetic practices.
Receive the holy Seal from the Mind of the Church…
Here, the Seal refers to the initiation rite which would have begun the disciplinary regime (aka the seals of mouth, hand, and heart) expected of Manichean elites.
[Jesus,] you are the Seal of every wonder
Here, the Seal motif is used to symbolize confirmation, much as a seal on a letter confirms the validity of the message.
We have important seal motifs in many other Manichean sources. Here’s a non-textual one. Among the very few Manichean artifacts that survive is the Seal of Mani, likely Mani’s actual seal from when he was actually alive or an imitation of it. This was a stamp seal used to authenticate letters (possibly including the Seal Letter, Mani’s final testimony to his followers) and has the following inscription:
Mani, Apostle of Jesus the Messiah
Here again, the Seal is used to confirm the truth of both Mani’s letters and Mani’s claim to apostlehood.
And finally, we have a direct use of the term “Seal of the Prophets” in a Manichean source. This is the Xuāstvānīft, a Uyghur Manichean confession book:
In Azrua [the Supreme God of Light], tangri [Heaven], in the God of the Sun and Moon, in the powerful God and the prophets have we put our trust, we have relied on them [and] have become Auditors. [The Auditors are the lower rank of the Manichean faithful, as opposed to the priesthood of Elects.] Four Seals of Light have we sealed in our hearts. Firstly Love, the seal of Azrua, tangri; secondly Faith, the seal of the God of the Sun and the Moon; thirdly the Fear [of God], the seal of the Fivefold God; fourthly Wisdom, the seal of the Prophets.
But here, the Seal of the Prophets does not refer to Mani as the final Prophet, but rather to the virtue of Wisdom. By practicing wisdom, Manichean faithful are authenticating the truth of their Prophets’ message, much as Mani’s seal authenticated the authorship of his letters.
Now, what about Islam? The Qur’anic phrase khātam an-nabīyyīn really appears with very little context. Here’s the relevant passage:
The Prophet is not at fault for what God has ordained for him. This was God’s practice with those who went before—God’s command must be fulfilled—[and with all] those who deliver God’s messages and fear only Him and no other: God’s reckoning is enough. Muhammad is not the father of any one of you men; he is God’s Messenger and the seal of the prophets [khātam an-nabīyyīn]: God knows everything.
This is traditionally interpreted as referring to the end of prophethood, much as a letter is finished once it has been sealed. But might it not refer to Muhammad confirming the other prophets’ message, much as the Seal motif does in Manichean symbolism?
In fact, while there is no direct Qur’anic claim to Muhammad being the final Prophet, there are abundant references to him being the confirmation of the prophets:
Whenever it was said to them, “There is no god but God,” they became arrogant, and said, “Are we to forsake our gods for a mad poet?” No: he brought the truth and confirmed the earlier messengers.
And there are early reports of how early Muslims interpreted khātam an-nabīyyīn as confirmation and not finality. For example, a poem attributed to Umayyah ibn Abī aṣ-Ṣalt, a contemporary of Muhammad who also claimed prophethood, claims that he is:
[the Prophet] by means of whom God sealed [khatama] the prophets before him and after him.
While poems attributed to Umayyah aren’t verifiably from the seventh century, this is evidence that Arabs from whenever the work was really written did not necessarily read khātam an-nabīyyīn as implying finality in addition to simple confirmation.
Leave a Reply