1 Baur discredits this claim on internal grounds (Das Manich. Religionssystem, p. 7).
2 * The printed text of the Eerdman's reprint is damaged or unreadable here.
2 Indian Wisdom, 3rd ed. (1876), p. 49.
3 Lenormant, Chaldean Magic (1877), p. 144-145.
4 Ibid. p. 146-147.
5 Ibid. p. 148.
6 Ante-Nicene Library, Am. ed. vol. vi. pp. 182 and 188.
7 Ibid. p. 241.
8 Outlines of the Hist. of Religion (1877), p. 173. Cf. J. Darmsteter, Introduction to the Zend-Avesta, p. xliii., xliv., lvi., lxxii., lxxiv. sq.; and his article in the Contemporary Review (Oct. 1879), on "The Supreme God in the Indo-European Mythology."
9 This is confidently asserted by Kessler (Art. Mani in Herzog's RE. 2d ed.vol. IX. p. 258), and after him by Harnack, Encyclopaedia Britannica, art. Manichaeism. On the other hand, Lenormant (Anc. Hist. II. p. 30), says: "Ahriman had been eternal in the past, he had no beginning, and proceeded from no former being * * * . This being who had no beginning would come to an end. * * * . Evil then should be finally conquered and destroyed, the creation should become as pure as on its first day, and Ahriman should disappear forever." Such, doubtless, was the original doctrine, but the form probably in vogue in the time of Mani was more pantheistic or monotheistic, both Ormuzd and Ahriman proceeding from boundless time (Zrvan akarana). See on this matter, Darmsteter: Introd. to the Zend-Avesta, p. lxxii, etc., and his art. in Contemp. Review; and Lenormant: Anc. Hist. as above.
10 That meat is used in the sense of flesh may be inferred from Darmsteter's comment on this passage, which he suggests may be a bit of religious polemics against Manichaeism. See his Introd. to the Zend-Avesta, p. xl. sq.