[1026]. Epiphanius, op. cit. c. 1, p. 398, Oehler.
[1027]. Colditz in Kessler, op. cit. pp. 15, 16. Cf. Rochat, op. cit. pp. 65, 66.
[1028]. Morrison, Jews under Romans, p. 325 for authorities. Philo, de Vit. Contempl. etc. c. III. says that similar communities existed in his time near the Mareotic lake in Egypt. But the date of the treatise and its attribution to Philo are alike uncertain. The first mention of Buddha in Greek literature is said to be that by Clem. Alex. Strom. Bk I. c. 15.
[1029]. Harnack in Encyc. Britann. 9th edition, s.v. Manichaeans, p. 48, says “There is not a single point in Manichaeism which demands for its explanation an appeal to Buddhism.” This may be, but the discoveries at Turfan and Tun-huang have made a connection between the two more probable than appeared at the time he wrote. See also Kessler as quoted by Rochat, op. cit. pp. 192, 193.
[1030]. This appears from the Chinese Treatise at Pekin mentioned later. See p. [293], n. 2.
[1031]. Rochat, op. cit. p. 194. So Socrates, Eccl. Hist. Bk I. c. 22, calls Manichaeism “a sort of heathen (Ἑλληνίζων) Christianity.”
[1032]. Hegemonius, Acta, c. VII. p. 91, Beeson; Flügel, op. cit. p. 86.
[1033]. Certainly none is recorded in the Christian accounts, where Darkness is called Hyle or Matter. En Nadîm (Flügel, op. cit. p. 86) makes Manes call the good God “the King of the Paradise of Light” and (p. 90) the Spirit of Darkness, Hummâma. Schahrastâni, as quoted in Flügel’s note (p. 240), makes this word mean “mirk” or “smoke” (Qualm). It would be curious if Hummâma had any connection with the Elamite Khumbaba, the opponent of the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh, because this personage already figures in Ctesias’ story about Nannaros, which has been recognized as a myth relating to the Moon-god.
[1034]. τὸ τῆς ὕλης δημιούργημα Hegemonius, Acta, c. VIII. p. 9, Beeson. Cf. Alexander of Lycopolis, adv. Manichaeos, c. II.
[1035]. Epiph. Haer. LXVI. c. 6, p. 408, Oehler; Hegemonius, Acta, c. V. pp. 5-7, Beeson. The authenticity of the letter is defended by Kessler, op. cit. p. 166. Cf. Rochat, op. cit. p. 94 contra.