A Robber in Paradise: Luke 23:43 in Manichaean and

Anti-Manichaean Exegesis
Flavia Ruani

To cite this version:

Flavia Ruani. A Robber in Paradise: Luke 23:43 in Manichaean and Anti-Manichaean Exege-
sis. J. BeDuhn, P. Dilley, I. Gardner (eds.). The Medinet Madi Library of Manichaean Codices
at 90., Brill, pp.219-249, 2023, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 104, 978-90-04-54293-8.
�10.1163/9789004542938_016�. �hal-03334331�

HAL Id: hal-03334331

https://hal.science/hal-03334331v1
Submitted on 4 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Copyright
 A Robber in Paradise: Luke 23:43 in Manichaean and Anti-Manichaean Exegesis

Flavia Ruani

Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, CNRS, Aubervilliers (Paris)

Introduction

The gospel episode of Jesus’ crucifixion is well attested in Manichaean texts and has received
much scholarly attention. Scholars usually dedicate their attention to evaluating whether
Manichaeans defended a docetic view of Jesus’ death (whether he truly died or he only
appeared to do so), and to studying Manichaean exegetical methods more generally.1
Research has shown that Manichaeans had, indeed, a very sophisticated reading of the New
Testament, and developed precise exegetical tools that allowed them to determine whether
each single verse was authentic or not, and thus whether it was to be kept or rejected. The
crucifixion narrative was accepted as authentic gospel material, while other parts, such as the
birth and infancy of Jesus, were deemed spurious and were therefore dismissed. The narration
of the crucifixion was accepted in the way it is transmitted by the Gospel of Luke, be it in the
form of a separate gospel or in its inclusion in the Diatessaron (the harmonization of the four
gospels also used by Manichaeans). The Manichaean narrative contains “the plot against
Jesus, the arrest, the trial, the death and the resurrection stories.”2 These episodes correspond
to the segment going from Luke 22:1 to 24:53, according to Michel Tardieu’s reconstruction
based on Middle Persian and Coptic sources.3
Furthermore, as is well known, Jesus’ crucifixion plays an essential role in the
Manichaean doctrine and in the celebration of its founder Mani, since it served as a model for

* I wish thank the participants of the conference “Manichaeism in Egypt: The Medinet Madi Library after 90
Years,” held at the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, on 18-19 October 2019, and of the seminar “TETRA. The
Text and Transmission Joint Research Seminar,” on 7 October 2020, for their comments and suggestions. In
particular, I am grateful to Jean-Daniel Dubois, Nils Arne Pedersen, David Taylor, and Emiliano Fiori. I also
express my gratitude to Anne-Catherine Baudoin, Alberto Camplani, and Yonatan Moss for our numerous
discussions on the topic of this paper and their invaluable remarks. Finally, I thank wholeheartedly Eduard
Iricinschi for his help in improving the style and content of this written version.
1
See Tardieu 1987; see also Viciano 2006; on the Manichaean use of the Gospels, see Pedersen, Falkenberg,
Larsen, Leurini 2020.
2
Tardieu 1987: 141. On the Manichaean perspective on Jesus’ trial, see Tardieu 1997.
3
Tardieu 1987: 141. The same scenes are mentioned in Keph. I, 12.21-13.11. For an interpretation of this
passage as reflecting the order of the gospel events transmitted by the Diatessaron, see Gulácsi 2021.

1
the depiction of Mani’s own final days, as the terminology employed in the Coptic Psalms
and in the Homilies suggests.4
One particular verse belonging to this biblical scene, quoted and cherished by the
Manichaeans, has not received much attention so far: it is Luke 23:43, containing Jesus’
promise to the good robber, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” This
verse is interesting because it was accepted by the Manichaeans as authentic (they used it and
referred to it, as we will see), but it was probably rejected by Marcion, whose biblical canon
the Manichaeans knew and partially shared. Indeed, both Marcion and Mani rejected the Old
Testament and kept the “Gospel and the Apostle (Paul)”; they both rejected the infancy
narrative in the Gospel of Luke.5 Yet it seems that Marcion also disregarded this very verse:
according to Epiphanius of Salamis, “[Marcion] excised ‘Today you will be with me in
Paradise’,” which made Epiphanius to bitterly remark about the Marcionites that “You have
taken away from yourselves the entry into Paradise, for you will not enter, neither will you
allow those with you” (Panarion 42.11.17).6
It is thus relevant to examine how this verse has been interpreted by the Manichaeans
and integrated in their doctrinal system, with which meanings and values it has been invested
in Manichaean sources, and also whether it represented a locus for the confrontation between
Manichaeans and “orthodox” Christians in late antiquity, as is the case of other biblical
verses, such as the famous Matt 7:18 about the good and the bad tree.7 To this end, in this
contribution I retrace the history of the exegesis of Luke 23:43 in Manichaean and anti-
Manichaean sources, mainly from the Mediterranean area, up to the sixth century. Curiously
enough, while the robbers are mentioned several times in the various texts, the promise of
Jesus to the good thief as contained in Luke 23:43 is somewhat rare.
In what follows, I will first provide an overview of the relevant sources where this verse
appears; then, I will focus on the only text, to the best of my knowledge, that discusses in
detail this biblical passage in an anti-Manichaean perspective, namely John Chrysostom’s
Sermon on Genesis 7 (end of the fourth century); I will compare it with a later source, Severus

4
See Gardner 2015.
5
On the relationship between the Marcionite New Testament and the Manichaean New Testament, see Tardieu
1987, 142-144. On the practice of antithesis as an exegetical tool shared by Marcion and Mani, see van den Berg
2010 and the recent contribution, Tardieu 2021.
6
Holl 1922, 153; and Williams 2009, 310. See also Roth 2015, 339 and 434. Mark Bilby advanced reasons to
doubt the veracity of Epiphanius’ statement, since he is the only author to claim Marcion’s rejection of this
verse. See Bilby 2012 (this dissertation was published by Université de Strasbourg in 2013, non uidi). See also
Lieu 2015, 198, who highlights that Epiphanius could refer to the entire episode of the penitent thief and not to
Jesus’ promise alone.
7
For the use of this verse in Manichaean and anti-Manichaean texts, see Coyle 2009, 65-88. See also Pedersen et
al. 2020.

2
of Antioch’s Cathedral Homily 22 (beginning of the sixth century), which, as I will argue,
draws on Chrysostom’s sermon; finally, based on the previous analyses, I will provide some
concluding remarks on the Manichaean exegesis of this verse and on its role in the debates
with Christian theologians.

1. Manichaean and Anti-Manichaean Interpretations of Luke 23:43

Manichaean Interpretations
According to the reference tool The New Testament in the Manichaean Tradition, this verse
appears in Western and Eastern Manichaean literature, both as quote and allusion, only six
times.8 Three occurrences belong to the fourth-century Coptic Psalm-book: Psalm to Jesus
242 (PsBk II, p. 49, lines 23-25),9 Psalm to Jesus 271 (PsBk II, p. 90, lines 29-32),10 and one
of the Psalms of Heracleides (PsBk II, p. 195, line 22).11 All three, including the latter, are
devoted to Jesus as the savior who can remit sins. The three other occurrences are found in
Iranian sources: the first one, M390/V/1-3, is a hymn on Jesus’ passion, also known as “The
Great Parthian Crucifixion Hymn”;12 the other two occurrences appear in M5779 (V/3-5 and
R/20-26), which presents an outline of the Bema liturgy and contains instructions on the
hymns to be sung during the Bema festival.13
All these texts are hymns used in ritual settings, and are devoted either to Jesus or to
Mani, both of them regarded as saviors and remitters of sins.14 One main interpretation of
Luke 23:43 emerges from this context: the good robber is the example of the good believer,
the faithful one who repented. As such, he becomes the model for Manichaean believers, who

8
Pedersen et al. 2020, 264-265.
9
“A robber was saved upon the cross because he did but / Acknowledge you; you forgot all the sins that he / Had
committed, you remembered all his good.”
10
“I stepped in with your cross, / I hung to the right of you, because I received the / Blessing: henceforth take me
with you to the Paradise of the holy Gods.”
11
This Psalm is 4He6 in Siegfried Richter’s edition (Richter 1998). This is a long hymn devoted to Jesus, who
describes how he found his disciples, the way his persecutors killed him, and how he raised up victorious and sat
at the right hand of his father. The allusion to the good thief is meant for Jesus’ disciples, who endured many
trials and suffering like him and were finally crowned for their faith: “They were made to go up on the fire, he
made them cool with his dews. / They were hanged to the cross, he took them to Paradise.”
12
For the edition and translation of this hymn, reconstructed from several manuscripts of the Berlin Turfan
collection, see Morano 1998, 131-145: “He [Jesus] showed salvation, and opened the door to / The pupils that
like him / Are crucified (…)” (ll. 77-79, at. 136).
13
The text was edited in Henning 1936, 45-46 (marked as T II D 123): “When you go, Lord (= Mani), save us
also from the mortal existence. […] And after the meal these three hymns take place: Commander of fair name,
God, Lord Mar Mani, you go, raise me also up to Paradise” (ll. 3-5 and 44-48).
14
On the multilayered figure of Jesus in Manichaeism, see Franzmann 2003.

3
identify with him when asking for the forgiveness of their sins. The quotation of the relevant
stanzas of the first source will exemplify this interpretation:

I confessed you indeed because of this hour, I endured

the mockery of all men; for I heard that he who shall deny
you – you forgot him in his afflictions.

Lo, my faith stands fast with me; lo, my almsgivings that

I performed in your name: lo, my prayers and my zeal
Demand that I should receive grace upon me.

A robber was saved upon the cross because he did but

Acknowledge you; you forgot all the sins that he
Had committed, you remembered all his good.

All worldly Matter that surrounds me – burn it today,

I beseech you. Cleanse me from all the sins, for
I too have hung on your hope.
(Psalm to Jesus 242, PsBk II, 49, 23-25)

Fourth-Century Christian Interpretations

Turning now to contemporary, fourth-century texts emanating from “orthodox” Christians,
apart from the prominence of the figure of Mani, which is naturally missing, we observe that
they promote a very similar interpretation of Luke 23:43.15 Ephrem of Nisibis (ca 306-373),
for example, who fiercely and extensively condemned the Manichaeans both through poetry
and prose, basically agrees with his adversaries insofar as this gospel verse is concerned. For
Ephrem too Luke 23:43 signifies the great mercy of Jesus, and the good thief is regarded as
the ideal of faith, repentance, and recompense. This interpretation is developed, for instance,
in his Commentary on the Diatessaron XX, 22-26.16 In other works, the thief becomes an
example for Ephrem himself, who prays for the forgiveness of his sins and for access to
Paradise in the robber’s footsteps (“Remember me as well, together with the robber, / So that
I could enter in your kingdom in his shadow”, Cruc. 6, 20).17 In his hymns, we find only one
explicit polemical context in which Ephrem refers to this verse. It is not against the
Manichaeans, but rather against the Arians, who, in his view, impudently seek to investigate

15
A study on this verse in early Christian literature up to the fifth century is provided by Bilby 2012. See also
The American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project. Vol. 2: The Gospel
according to Luke 13-24 1987, 223-224, which include numerous Greek, Latin, and Syriac patristic references
related to this verse.
16
See Leloir 1966, 359-362.
17
For analysis of Luke 23:43 in Ephrem’s works, see Bilby 2012, 122-124.

4
God’s mystery. In the Hymn on Faith 84, 1-2, for instance, Ephrem recalls the example of the
thief as of the one who, unlike the Arians, rightly believed and was rewarded:

1. The thief possessed faith –

That faith which possessed him – and it raised him up and placed him
In Paradise. He saw in the cross
The Tree of Life. That faith was a fruit.
And he took the place of Adam as an eater.

2. The fool who has faith

Alongside all kinds of questions, irritates that faith,
In the same way that poking the eye with a finger
Blinds the eye. Worse than this is
The one who investigates faith.18

Nowhere in his writings does Ephrem use this verse in a context of explicit accusation
against the Manichaeans; this is rather unlike his clear attempts at singling out other biblical
passages in his anti-Manichaean texts, in which he criticizes the Manichaeans’ “wrong”
exegesis.19 A quick review of the other Christian writers who usually reject the Manichaean
interpretation of the Bible, surprisingly did not give any result either: Luke 23:43 is not
significantly mentioned or discussed in the anti-Manichaean works of Serapion of Thmuis,
Titus of Bostra, Epiphanius of Salamis or Augustine, for example.20 The only exception I
could find is John Chrysostom, Sermon on Genesis 7 (CPG 4410),21 where a specific and
extensive interpretation of Luke 23:43 is explicitly attributed to the Manichaeans and then
refuted.22 It is this sermon that I will discuss next.

18
Translation by Wickes 2015: 387. We notice here the establishment of a link between Adam, the one who was
cast out of Paradise because of his sin, and the good thief, the one who, thanks to his repentance, entered
Paradise. This connection is traditional in early Christian literature, and used in several other occurrences in
Ephrem’s writings: see Bilby 2012: 282-291. For an analysis of Luke 23:43 in Ephrem’s polemics against the
Arians, including the Hymn on Faith quoted here, see Bilby 2012: 143-145.
19
As the above-mentioned Matt 7:18 on the good and bad trees.
20
My survey included the following fourth- through sixth-century authors and works from North Africa, Italy,
Constantinople, Antioch, Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine: Acta Archelai, Serapion of Thmuis, Ephrem of
Nisibis, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus of Alexandria, Titus of Bostra, Epiphanius of Salamis, Theodoret of
Cyrrhus, Augustine of Hippo, Severian of Gabala, John the Grammarian, and the Abjuration formulas. In these
texts, Luke 23:43 is sometimes mentioned, but not in a relevant way. For example, in Augustine’s Contra
Faustum XIV, 1, Faustus alludes to this verse in his demonstration of existing discrepancies between the Old and
the New Testaments (in particular, between Deut. 21:23, which curses everyone hanging on a pole, and Luke
23); Epiphanius, Panarion 66.62 alludes to this verse in his anti-Manichaean chapter, but to demonstrate that evil
is not ontological: the thief, among other biblical examples, changed and repented of his criminal acts.
21
CPG = Clavis Patrum Graecorum, edited by Maurice Geerard [and J. Noret], 5 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974-
1987, 1998, 2003.
22
John Chrysostom’s anti-Manichaean polemics remain very understudied and there is not much scholarship
devoted to this aspect of Chrysostom’s preaching. For a very recent overview of his anti-Manichaean topics,
with relevant literature, see de Wet 2021, 225-252. See also Mara, 2008, 195-199; de Wet 2011: 92-114, esp. 94-
99; and de Wet 2014: 18-41, esp. 30-36, for the analysis of the anti-Manichaean rhetoric in three of
Chrysostom’s texts on Paul’s epistles, namely Homily 11 on Philippians, Homily 38 on 1 Corinthians, and

5
2. John Chrysostom, Sermon on Genesis 7

The Sermon on Genesis 7 belongs to the short series of sermons on Genesis that John
Chrysostom delivered as a priest in Antioch, before being ordained as bishop of
Constantinople. Specifically, this sermon was pronounced during Lent of the year 386 AD.23
After speaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9), Chrysostom comments on
Luke 23:43. He first establishes a link between Adam and the good thief, like Ephrem before
him; he mentions the episode of repentance on the cross and praises the thief’s faith and
Jesus’ mercy, by evoking the promise of Paradise.24 Then, suddenly, he pauses to highlight
that this promise was wrongly interpreted by the Manichaeans. He argues that the
Manichaeans used this verse to deny the resurrection of bodies.25 He reports this Manichaean
claim in two parts, each one followed by a double refutation, mainly supported by quotes
from the Epistles of Paul. The structure of this part of the sermon devoted to Luke 23:43 in an
anti-Manichaean perspective can be outlined in the following way:

Manichaean claim 1: the thief has received the reward, the resurrection of the bodies does not exist
- Refutation 1: body and soul are inseparable (2 Cor 5:10, 1 Cor 15:53)
- Refutation 2: Paradise vs. Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor 2:9)
Manichaean claim 2: Paradise = Kingdom of Heaven
- Refutation 1: Jesus speaks of the future (Jn 3:18, Jn 5:24)
- Refutation 2: Nobody has been resurrected yet (Heb 11:13, Heb 11:40)

Despite its length, it is worth quoting in full the first part of the claim, since it is unique in
Manichaean and anti-Manichaean literature:

Commentary on Galatians 1. Indeed, Chrysostom’s attacks against the Manichaeans are spread in his large
corpus of writings, especially in his exegetical homilies on Paul’s epistles and the Gospels. In order to gather a
substantial list of Chrysostom’s anti-Manichaean passages, it is necessary to combine the references discussed in
the afore-mentioned articles with the information provided in Rambault 2013, 28, n. 4, and Alpi 2004: 233-243,
esp. 237, n. 27.
23
Edition and French translation in Brottier 1998: 300-345. English translation in Hill 2004, 107-133.
24
The Sermon is analyzed by Bilby 2012, 154-155, for the novel interpretation of the bandit’s vision of Jesus’
divinity as “the eyes of faith.” Bilby points out the similarities of this sermon with two other homilies, entitled
On the Cross and the Bandit (CPG 4338-4339). Nevertheless, these two homilies do not contain a parallel
section to the anti-Manichaean development present in the Sermon on Genesis 7.
25
De Wet 2021, 239-241, mentions this sermon and discusses Chrysostom’s double reaction against the
Manichaean denial of physical resurrection.

6
 Just as the fellow had regard for divinity, so God had regard for the brigand’s heart,
saying, Today you will be with me in Paradise. At this point pay attention: an issue arises
that is not a chance one, namely the Manichaeans, stupid and rabid dogs, presenting an
appearance of mildness, but having on the inside the savage fury of dogs, wolves in
sheep’s clothing. Lest you look to appearances, however, examine instead the wild beast
hidden within. These people, then, seize upon this passage to claim: “Christ said, Amen,
amen, I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise, so reward of good things has
already been made, and resurrection is unnecessary. If the brigand,” says (the
Manichaean), “was awarded good things that very day whereas his body has not yet risen
even today, there will be no resurrection of the body in future.” Surely you have not given
thought to what was said, or require that it be said a second time? “Amen, amen, I tell
you, today you will be with me in Paradise. The brigand, then,” says (the Manichaean),
“did not enter Paradise with his body: How could he, when his body was not buried, and
had not turned to dust, and there is no mention anywhere that Christ raised him up? If he
welcomed the brigand, and the latter enjoyed the good things without his body, clearly
there is no resurrection of the body; for if there were resurrection of the body, he would
not have said: You will be with me in paradise today, but ‘at the moment of fulfillment,
when there is a resurrection of bodies.’ But if he has already welcomed the brigand, and
his body stayed outside and decayed, clearly there is no resurrection of bodies.” This is
what they (say).26

According to Chrysostom’s report, the Manichaeans would have read Luke 23:43 as evidence
for denying the resurrection of the bodies: they would have understood the promise of
Paradise as applying to the day of death and would have further interpreted this as proof for
the resurrection of the soul alone, based on the fact that the robber’s body was buried that
very day and could not have risen.
To this reading, Chrysostom first opposes the anthropological doctrine that considers
body and soul as inseparable, which is traditional in Christian thought. In support, he quotes
Paul’s words in 2 Cor 5:10 (We must appear before the court of Christ so that everyone may
obtain the price of what he has done during his bodily life, either for good or for evil) and 1
Cor 15:53 (This mortal being must clothe immortality, and this corruptible being must clothe

26
Serm. Gen. 7.4 (SC 433), 332, l. 305 – 334, l. 333: ὥσπερ οὗτος εἶδεν εἰς τὴν θεότητα, οὕτως ὁ Θεὸς εἶδεν εἰς
τὴν καρδίαν τοῦ λῃστοῦ, καί φησι· Σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ. Ἐνταῦθα προσέχετε· ζήτημα γὰρ οὐ
τὸ τυχὸν ἐπιφύεται. Καὶ γὰρ οἱ Μανιχαῖοι, οἱ κύνες, οἱ ἐννεοὶ καὶ λυττῶντες, τὸ σχῆμα μὲν ἐπιδείκνυνται
ἐπιεικείας, τὴν χαλεπὴν δὲ ἔνδον ἔχουσι τῶν κυνῶν μανίαν, καὶ κατακρύπτουσι τῇ δορᾷ τοῦ προβάτου τὸν
λύκον. Ἀλλὰ μὴ τὸ φαινόμενον ἴδῃς, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἔνδον κεκρυμμένον θηρίον ἐξέτασον. Οὗτοι τοίνυν ἐπιλαβόμενοι
τοῦ χωρίου τούτου φασίν· Εἶπεν ὁ Χριστός· Ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ·
οὐκοῦν ἀντίδοσις ἤδη γέγονε τῶν ἀγαθῶν, καὶ περιττὴ ἡ ἀνάστασις. Εἰ γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἀπέλαβεν ὁ
λῃστὴς τὰ ἀγαθὰ, τὸ δὲ σῶμα αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἀνέστη οὐδέπω καὶ τήμερον, οὐκ ἔσται σωμάτων λοιπὸν ἀνάστασις.
Ἆρα ἐνοήσατε τὸ λεχθὲν, σωμάτων λοιπὸν ἀνάστασις. Ἆρα ἐνοήσατε τὸ λεχθὲν, ἢ δεύτερον αὐτὸ πάλιν εἰπεῖν
ἀνάγκη; Ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ. Εἰσῆλθεν οὖν, φησὶν, εἰς τὸν
παράδεισον ὁ λῃστὴς οὐ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος· πῶς γὰρ, ὁπότε οὐκ ἐτάφη τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ διελύθη καὶ κόνις
ἐγένετο; καὶ οὐδαμοῦ εἴρηται, ὅτι ἀνέστησεν ὁ Χριστὸς αὐτόν. Εἰ δὲ εἰσήγαγε τὸν λῃστὴν, καὶ χωρὶς τοῦ
σώματος ἀπέλαυσε τῶν ἀγαθῶν, εὔδηλον ὅτι σώματος οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνάστασις. Εἰ γὰρ ἦν σώματος ἀνάστασις, οὐκ
ἂν εἶπε· Σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ, ἀλλ’, ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς συντελείας, ὅταν σωμάτων ἀνάστασις
ᾖ. Εἰ δὲ ἤδη εἰσήγαγε τὸν λῃστὴν, τὸ δὲ σῶμα αὐτοῦ φθαρὲν ἔμεινεν ἕξω, εὔδηλον ὅτι σωμάτων ἀνάστασις οὐκ
ἔστι. Ταῦτα ἐκεῖνοι·
Trans. Hill 2004: 125-126, slightly modified.

7
immortality), in order to highlight that body and soul endured together the suffering of the
earthly life and will together receive the reward of resurrection. Then, he establishes a
difference between Paradise as mentioned by Jesus in Luke 23:43 and the kingdom of heaven,
where the resurrection of the bodies will take place. By quoting 1 Cor 2:9 (“Do you not hear
what Paul says about those good things: What the eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it
entered the human heart? Now Paradise, Adam’s eye has seen it, his ear has heard it, and
man’s heart has received it”),27 Chrysostom reminds his audience that God did not proclaim
the kingdom of Paradise, but the kingdom of heaven, and illustrates this conception with
further biblical examples.28 He infers from these scriptural proofs that the robber is in
Paradise, not in heaven, and that he has not been resurrected yet (“So, if he [Jesus] promised
the kingdom of heaven and welcomed the brigand into Paradise, he had not yet repaid him the
good things [i.e. the reward of resurrection]”).29 The distinction between the physical reality
of Paradise, experienced by Adam, and the heavenly reality of the kingdom, that nobody
knows yet, relies on a literal interpretation of scriptures, which is characteristic of the
Antiochene exegesis promoted by Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia.30 John
Chrysostom favors this kind of biblical interpretation against the Alexandrian, allegorical
tradition.31 This interpretation has led to the notion that there is an intermediate place where
the souls of the deceased await the last judgment before reuniting with the bodies; and this
place is Paradise.32
At this juncture, Chrysostom reports an objection purportedly coming from the
Manichaeans which is directly related to his latter argument. This objection constitutes the
second part of the Manichaean claim. The polemicist frames it in a fictitious dialogue between
himself and a Manichaean interlocutor:

27
Serm. Gen. 7.5 (SC 433), 336, ll. 352-356: Οὐκ ἀκούεις τοῦ Παύλου περὶ τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐκεῖνα τί φησιν; Ἃ
ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδε, καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσε, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη· τὸν δὲ παράδεισον καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς
εἶδε τοῦ Ἀδὰμ, καὶ οὖς παράδεισον καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδε τοῦ Ἀδὰμ, καὶ οὖς ἤκουσε, καὶ καρδία ἀνθρώπου
ἐδέξατο· Trans. Hill 2004: 128, slightly modified.
28
He evokes Matt 4:17, Gen 3:18, He 6:4-8, Gen 2, John 3:5. In late antique Christian theological thinking, the
identity or the distinction between Paradise and kingdom of heaven were subject to debate. For the general
contours of these notions and their relationship, see Delumeau 1992: 1:45-46; Filoramo and Ramelli 2014: 3:65-
68; Bockmuehl 2010: 192-209.
29
Serm. Gen. 7.5 (SC 433), 338, ll. 385-387: Εἰ τοίνυν βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν ἐπηγγείλατο, εἰς παράδεισον δὲ
εἰσήγαγε τὸν λῃστὴν, οὐδέπω ἀπέδωκεν αὐτῷ τὰ ἀγαθά. Trans. Hill 2004: 130.
30
Like the Antiochenes, John Chrysostom defends the belief in the physical existence of Paradise on earth,
against other theologians, such as Origen, who understand Paradise as a spiritual entity: see Bockmuehl 2010:
205 and 208.
31
See de Wet 2021: 240.
32
On the late antique Christian notion of various heavens, among which is Paradise or Eden, see Filoramo and
Ramelli 2014: 3:66, who also mention Syriac sources such as Ephrem.

8
 In response to this they make another claim: “The Paradise he [Jesus] means here is not
paradise; instead, he used the term paradise for the kingdom of heaven. Since he was
speaking to a brigand, you see, a person who had heard nothing of elevated doctrines, was
not aware of inspired writing, and instead had spent his whole life in isolation,
committing murders, casting not even a glance at a church or participating in sacred
reading, unaware of what the kingdom of heaven is, he put it this way, Today you will be
with me in Paradise, suggesting by the better-known and more familiar term “paradise”
the kingdom of heaven – this it was of which Christ was talking to him.” – “I follow.” –
“Therefore,” says (the Manichaean), “he entered the kingdom of heaven.” – “What is the
proof for that?” – “From his saying: Today, you will be with me in Paradise.”33

In other words, the Manichaeans would have taken Jesus’ promise of Paradise as the promise
of the kingdom of heaven and would have explained Jesus’ ambiguous expression as a
conscious choice intended to adapt his message to the abilities of understanding of the
illiterate thief. Accordingly, the good robber is truly in heaven and he has been resurrected
with his soul alone.
This interpretation attributed to the Manichaeans reflects their known hermeneutical
practice in two respects. First, the appeal to a social explanation is in line with Manichaean
exegetical principles. As Michel Tardieu points out by referring to the reading of Matt 5:17
provided by Faustus (Augustine, Contra Faustum XIX, 1-3), the Manichaeans valued the
sociological and the narrative contexts of a New Testament passage to clarify its ambiguous
or obscure meaning.34
Second, the idea of an immediate redemption upon death, which is the implicit
consequence of the proposed interpretation, is consistent with the Manichaean doctrine of the
afterlife and of the end of times, namely with both individual and cosmic eschatology, as
found mostly in Greek, Coptic, Iranian, and Arabic documents. According to it, after death,
the saints’ souls ascend to the Realm of Light, also called New Paradise of Light in the
apocalyptic age, namely the place where all the particles of light will be gathered after the last
judgment and the destruction of Matter. The New Paradise will finally merge with the original
luminous Kingdom of the Father of Greatness. In other words, in the Manichaean
understanding, the terms Paradise and the kingdom of heaven do not cover different realities,

33
Serm. Gen. 7.5 (SC 433), 340, ll. 388-402: Ἀλλ’ ἕτερόν τι πρὸς τοῦτο λέγουσι. Τὸν παράδεισον, φασὶν,
ἐνταῦθα, οὐ τὸν παράδεισον εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ τῷ τοῦ παραδείσου ὀνόματι τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ὠνόμασεν.
Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πρὸς λῃστὴν διελέγετο, ἄνθρωπον οὐδὲν ἀκηκοότα τῶν ὑψηλῶν δογμάτων, οὐδὲ εἰδότα περὶ
προφητείας, ἀλλὰ πάντα τὸν χρόνον ἐν ἐρημίαις διατρίψαντα, καὶ φόνους ἐργασάμενον, καὶ μηδὲ παρακύψαντά
ποτε εἰς ἐκκλησίαν, μήτε μετασχόντα θείας ἀκροάσεως, μὴ εἰδότα τί ποτέ ἐστι βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, τοῦτο
ἔλεγε· Σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ· Τῷ γνωριμωτέρῳ καὶ συνηθεστέρῳ ὀνόματι τοῦ παραδείσου
τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν δηλοῖ, καὶ περὶ ἐκείνης αὐτῷ διαλέγεται ὁ Χριστός. Δέχομαι. Οὐκοῦν, φησὶν,
εἰσῆλθε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. Πόθεν δῆλον; Ἐξ ὧν εἶπε, Σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ.
Τrans. Hill 2004: 130, slightly modified.
34
Tardieu 1987 : 135-136 (exegetical rule n° 13).

9
but rather the same entity, since the end, both individual and cosmic, is conceived of as a
return to the beginning.35
Chrysostom considers the Manichaean solution of equating Paradise and the kingdom of
heaven as “forcing” the biblical text (βιαιοτέρα ἡ λύσις αὕτη).36 We should recall here that the
same equation was popular in the thoughts of some Christian writers, such as Basil of
Caesarea, who used the two terms interchangeably.37 We may understand Chrysostom’s
allegation of distortion, then, less against the Manichaeans themselves than against an
allegorical, or in any case a non-literal interpretation of the biblical verse. In his Homilies 38.3
and 39 on 1 Cor, Chrysostom also refutes the Manichaean denial of the bodily resurrection,
which is based, according to him, on an allegorical interpretation of 1 Cor 15: the
Manichaeans would have taken the Pauline term “death” as meaning “being in sin”, and
“resurrection” as being freed from sin.38
In our Sermon, John Chrysostom replies to this second Manichaean claim in a twofold
way, as he did to the previous claim. First, he quotes John 3:18 (The one who does not believe
in the Son has already been condemned) and John 5:24 (The one who believes in the Son has
transferred from death to life) to show that Jesus tends to speak of the future as an already
existing reality: Christ speaks of the events “as though things have occurred that have not yet
occurred, so he spoke also to the brigand.”39 In other words, in his perspective, the thief
entered Paradise just in words, not in experience yet. Then, Chrysostom argues that nobody
has been resurrected yet (“no one has laid hold of the reward of goods things”) and cites Heb
11:13 (It was in faith that they all died without having obtained the object of the promises, but
they saw it and greeted it from afar) and Heb 11:40 (God foresaw a better fate for us, and

35
For an excellent presentation of Manichaean eschatology and relevant bibliography, see Werner Sundermann
1998/2012. The Coptic Psalm of the Wanderers 12 expresses this doctrine in poetical terms: upon death, the soul
exults saying “Open to me thy Paradise (…) O holy ones, rejoice with me, for I have returned to my beginning
again.” (PsBk II, 154,22-155,15, ed. and tr. Allberry 1938).
36
Serm. Gen. 7.5 (SC 433), 340, l. 403.
37
Filoramo and Ramelli 2014: 3:66.
38
See de Wet 2011: 97-98, and de Wet 2021: 239. It is worth noting, however, that in other cases Chrysostom
seems obliged to refute the Manichaean literal exegesis and to promote an allegorical interpretation to counter
Manichaean theses. See, for example, the Manichaean reading of Gal 1:4 (God who gave himself for our sins to
rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father) reported in Chrysostom’s
Commentary on Gal. 1. Here, the Manichaeans are said to take “the present evil age” literally, to mean “evil
world,” which would support their notion of cosmology; whereas Chrysostom interprets αἴων in a temporal sense
and as metaphorically meaning “evil actions and a depraved moral principle.” See de Wet 2014: 31-33.
39
Serm. Gen. 7.5 (SC 433), 342, ll. 414-416: ὡς γεγενημένων δὴ πραγμάτων οὔπω γεγενημένων
διαλέγεται· οὕτω καὶ πρὸς τὸν λῃστὴν ἔλεγε. Trans. Hill 2004: 131. Chrysostom further alludes to Gen 2:17 and
interprets God’s death sentence to Adam in the same way, namely that Adam did not die after his transgression.
On this interpretive technique, characteristic of Chrysostom’s exegesis but which goes back as far as Justin
Martyr, see Moss 2013: 227-250, at 238, fn. 41.

10
they were not to reach perfection without us). After that, he concludes the sermon by
recommending his audience to remember his words, which are useful for their education.40

How should we take John Chrysostom’s testimony, given that, to the best of my
knowledge, he would be the only author, in the panorama of Manichaean and anti-
Manichaean literature, to report such a Manichaean exegesis of Luke 23:43? It is possible that
he invented this Manichaean biblical reading, by extrapolating it from the Manichaean
rejection of the physical resurrection, which is anchored in turn on the anthropological and
eschatological Manichaean doctrine, namely the opposition between body and soul, the
redemption of light and the destruction of matter at the end of times. Well informed about
Manichaean dogmas, Chrysostom may have linked the Manichaean doctrine on resurrection
to the Lukan verse. The opinion he attributes to the Manichaeans is, indeed, fundamentally
authentic, as several direct sources demonstrate, including a Sogdian fragment from Turfan
(M 140), which speaks of “five resurrections,” all concerning the liberation of light.
Interestingly with regard to our discussion, this text also contains polemics against those who
defend the final resurrection in the flesh (including Elchasaites, other Christians, and
Zoroastrians): “And if the resurrection of the fleshly bodies would occur, just like the heretics
say, then a Mazan-like demon more disgusting than this could not be found.”41 Thus, in
Chrysostom’s sermon, if the opinion he attributes to the Manichaeans is correct, its direct
relation to Luke 23:43 may be due to the intervention of Chrysostom himself. One may
suggest that this link is prompted by the aforementioned intra-Christian, longstanding
discussion over the realities of Paradise and the kingdom of heaven: John Chrysostom may
have aimed at dismissing the view which defended the identity of the two realities based on
Luke 23:43, among other biblical passages, by attributing it to an external enemy universally
condemned, Manichaeism. In other words, he would have used the Manichaeans and their
notions to target Christian adversaries and ultimately affirm his ideas in an intra-Christian
debate revolving around the interpretation of Luke 23:43 and the concept of Paradise.
According to this scenario, the Manichaeans would not have appropriated this verse for
supporting their doctrine against the corporeal resurrection.

40
Hill 2004: 132-133 (slightly modified): “Hold fast to this and remember it; much has been said, and my
longing is that you have a better education. Holding fast to it with precision, then, let us also prepare ourselves
for what is yet to be said and all together, let us praise glory to God, to whom be the glory and the power, now
and forever, and for ever and ever. Amen.”
41
Text, translation, and commentary in Sundermann 1996: 187-194 (quote at 191).

11
 As likely as this scenario may be, given how frequently late antique Christian
theologians used Manichaeism as a label of abuse to designate other opponents and deal with
other controversies,42 nevertheless there are reasons to doubt it and to consider, by contrast,
the authenticity of Chrysostom’s attribution of this exegesis to the Manichaeans. First, what
he reports of the Manichaean interpretation is articulated and not condensed in a stereotypical
formula, as is oftentimes the case when the polemicists appeal to Manichaeans for
condemning a Christological doctrine as docetic or for attacking groups as dualistic. Second,
this interpretation is based on the exegetical criterion of the social explanation that is attested
in other sources relevant for Manichaeism, namely Augustine’s Contra Faustum; as such,
Chrysostom’s interpretation looks, then, very plausible. Third, the interpretation is
conceptually coherent with other opinions Chrysostom attributes to Manichaeans in other
homilies as interpretations of other biblical passages, in particular of Paul’s epistles.43 It is
well known that Paul was considered a reference figure by Mani and his followers; it is an
equally known fact that Manichaeans relied on his writings also by interpreting his words in
accordance with their own teachings.44 In other words, we are not in the presence of a brief,
clichéd, and isolated instance that would look spurious. Furthermore, John Chrysostom attests
to a wider pool of biblical passages that were taken by the Manichaeans in support of their
beliefs, as much as other Christian polemicists do, in primis Titus of Bostra and Augustine.
This is why we should try to explain the uniqueness of Chrysostom’s attestation in
another way. For example, it may be possible that Chrysostom accounts for a local exegesis:
the exegesis of the Manichaean community in Antioch, where Manichaean presence is
documented since at least the beginning of the fourth century.45 It is with this Antiochene
context in mind that I turn to another well-known anti-Manichaean polemicist, active in
Antioch in the early sixth century, namely the Miaphysite patriarch Severus (r. 512-518). And
yet, it is not in his famous Cathedral Homily 123, explicitly targeted against the Manichaeans
and which is a mine of citations from direct Manichaean sources, that I could find something
relevant to the topic under discussion, but rather in the Cathedral Homily 22 (CPG 7035), that

42
The cases are numerous. For an example recently discussed in scholarship, see Pedersen 2021: 324-350.
43
See the bibliography mentioned above, fn. 21.
44
See Viciano 2006: 663 for some examples and relevant literature.
45
For example, the elect Julia, who debates with Porphyry, the bishop of Gaza, as reported by Mark the Deacon
in his Life of Porphyry, comes from Antioch. See Scopello 2005: 237-291. See idem, 246-248 for a presentation
of the historical evidence concerning the Manichaean presence in Antioch.

12
Severus delivered in Antioch on April 5, 513 and where, moreover, the Manichaeans are not
overtly mentioned.46

3. Severus of Antioch, Cathedral Homily 22

The homily focuses on Matt 27:46 (My God My God, why have you forsaken me?) and
explicitly situates itself within the Christological debates of the fifth and sixth centuries.47
Severus opens his sermon by denouncing his major target, those who defend a “dualistic view
of the natures of Christ,” namely the followers of the Council of Chalcedon and of Nestorius’
doctrine. Accordingly, the sermon is a lengthy demonstration that Matt 27:46 does not
contradict Miaphysite Christology, promoted by Severus, but rather offers evidence in support
of the condemnation of Dyophysite doctrine. It is in this framework that Severus evokes Luke
23:43, as a further biblical proof for his argument.48 This citation occasions a discussion of its
various interpretations; this discussion appears in the final part of the sermon as an excursus.49
For composing this excursus, I argue that Severus drew on John Chrysostom’s Sermon on
Genesis 7, without acknowledging it, and that, consequently, the polemics against the
Dyophysites is suspended for a moment to refute the Manichaeans, who remain unmentioned.
The excursus is composed of a series of explanations of Luke 23:43, each one
introduced by a standardized formula, “Some say,” “Others say,” where every party involved
is left anonymous. Here is an outline of the structure of the excursus:

“For some say”: “How can we say that the thief entered Paradise” given Heb 11:39-40?
“Some say (to this)”: restrictive interpretation of Heb 11:39-40, the thief did enter Paradise
“But others say”: Jesus speaks of the future (John 3:18 and 5:24)
“Others also force this verse”: punctuation in the verse, “today” does not refer to the resurrection

46
This might be one of the reasons why this homily has passed unnoticed in Manichaean studies. I will try to
demonstrate below that it concerns the Manichaeans in some respects. It is thanks to the list of patristic texts
dealing with the good robber provided by Van Esbroeck that this homily caught my attention: Esbroeck 1983:
328-329.
47
Edition of the Syriac text (in the translation by Jacob of Edessa) and French translation: Brière & Graffin
1975: 88-113. The part of the homily devoted to Luke 23:43 is also preserved in Greek, not in its original
version, but in a catena: see Cramer 1844: 168-171. This text is reproduced in the Patrologia Orientalis edition,
at p. 106-112. An analysis of the structure of Homily 22, and the exegesis Severus displays there, is offered in
Roux 2002: 190-201.
48
More precisely, Luke 23:43 appears in the homily as the second component of the Dyophysite/Miaphysite
discussion. The homily has been defined as a diptych by Roux 2002: 192, for Matt 27:46 and Luke 23:43 convey
two opposite views on Christ, the former his human weakness, the latter his divine power. This opposition would
have supported the Dyophysites and their emphasis on the double nature of Christ. Thus, Severus sets off to
refute the Dyophysite doctrine by addressing the evangelical verses one at the time.
49
Hom. 22 (PO 37), 106, l. 5 – 112, l. 10 (Syr.), 107, l. 4 – 113, l. 9 (French trans.).

13
“But the true exegesis is this”: Paradise vs. Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 3:2 and 6:10)
“But maybe someone will say”: Paradise = Kingdom of Heaven
Refutation: Paradise vs. Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor 2:9) and nobody has been resurrected yet (Heb
11:40)

Modern scholars have highlighted that Severus’ presentation of these various opinions
represents the originality and the historical importance of this sermon. 50 Moreover, they have
pointed out that here Severus draws on the exegetical techniques he uses to interpret Jesus’
words or dicta, rather than narrative episodes or facta. Contrary to the latter, in the exegesis of
dicta Severus is incline to present and admit as legitimate a multiplicity of opinions, if they do
not contradict the regula fidei.51 A close examination of the text allows to refine this
assessment and to understand that the excursus is articulated in two movements: 1) Severus
first reports one specific position, which is subsequently refuted by four opinions; only the
last one of them reflects Severus’ own response; 2) Severus reports an objection to his
response, then refutes this too. The structure can thus be improved in this way:

Position to condemn 1: “How can we say that the thief entered Paradise” given Heb 11:39-40?
Refutation 1: restrictive interpretation of Heb 11:39-40, the thief did enter Paradise
Refutation 2: Jesus speaks of the future (John 3:18 and 5:24)
Refutation 3: punctuation in the verse, “today” does not refer to the resurrection
Refutation 4 (Severus): Paradise vs. Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 3:2 and 6:10)
Position to condemn 2: Paradise = Kingdom of Heaven
Refutation (Severus): Paradise vs. Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor 2:9) and nobody had been
resurrected yet (Heb 11:40)

Is it possible to be more precise and to identify to whom the various positions and refutations
belong?
The first position to condemn questions the very fact that the thief could enter
Paradise. According to it, Luke 23:43 stands in contradiction to Paul’s words in Heb 11:39-
40: Jesus’ promise of Paradise would oppose Paul’s statement, uttered years after the
crucifixion, that the righteous ones, the witnesses of faith, would not be rewarded with the

50
See Van Esbroeck 1983: 333: “Sévère d’Antioche est intéressant tant par sa date que parce qu’il passe en
revue les opinions diverses.”
51
On this, see Roux 2002: 127-128 (for Severus’ exegesis of dicta) and 198-199 (for the application of this
exegesis to this excursus). For other examples of Severus’s acceptance of multiple biblical interpretations, see
Moss 2016b: 785-808, esp. 805-807.

14
blessing of resurrection before the apostles, including Paul himself. Severus’ remarks on this
read:

But in addition to what has been said, a question about this verse [Luke 23:43] must still
be explained. For some say: How can we say that the thief has entered Paradise, while the
apostle Paul, in the letter to the Hebrews, believes that the righteous listed from the past
have been justified by faith; and then he adds: all those who have witnessed faith have not
received the promises, since God foresaw a better fate for us, and they were not to reach
perfection without us (He 11:39-40)?52

This position implies the idea that before the time of the apostles nobody could have
resurrection. For this reason, it cannot be ascribed as such to the Manichaeans, who,
according to their interpretation transmitted by John Chrysostom, would not deny that the
robber entered Paradise, but only that he entered it with his body. Yet, there is the possibility
to consider the position reported by Severus as a general challenge to the Christian doctrine
on resurrection. Its formulation, in terms of a contradiction between the two passages, could
support this understanding, since opponents to “orthodox” Christians would use this rhetorical
strategy of antithesis. Taken this way, this position would aim to express reservations about
the Christian belief of resurrection, namely bodily resurrection. Accordingly, the Manichaeans
could be likely candidates for advancing this position. In addition, we remark that the
scriptural proof of Heb 11:39-40 was also cited in Chrysostom’s sermon as part of his
refutation of Manichaean claims (and we will see below that this passage will reappear as part
of Severus’ demonstration). The following analysis will provide another piece of evidence in
support of the attribution of this position to the Manichaeans.
Severus continues by reporting some replies that would counter that opinion. The first
of these refutations centers on Heb 11:39-40 and interprets it literally, almost philologically,
by focusing on the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος, which is used in the expression “those who
witnessed the faith.” The supporters of this refutation claim that Paul excluded the thief from
the list of these witnesses of the past, by interpreting οὗτος in a restrictive way, namely as

52
Hom. 22 (PO 37), 106, ll. 5-11 (Syr.) (and 107, ll. 4-9 for the French trans.).
‫ܓܝܣܐ‬̇ ‫ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܢܐܡܪ ܕܥܠܝܠ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܡܪܝܢ܆‬̇ ‫ܐܢܫܝܢ ܓܝܪ‬
̈ .‫ ܕܥܡ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܐܬܐܡܪ܆ ܐܦ ܐܚܪܬܐ ܕܡܬܒܥܝܐ ܕܦܬܓܡܐ ܗܢܐ ̣ܢܫܪܐ‬.‫̇ܙܕܩ ܕܝܢ‬
‫ܘܐܝܬܝ ܒܬܪܟܢ܇ ܘܗܠܝܢ‬ ̇ ̈
‫ܥܒܖܝܐ ܕܐܙܕܕܩܘ ܒܝܕ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ܇‬ ‫ܠܙܕܝܩܐ ܕܡܢ ܥܠܡ ܡ ̣ܢܐ܇ ܒܐܓܪܬܐ ̇ܗܝ ܕܠܘܬ‬
̈ ‫ܠܦܪܕܝܣܐ܇ ܟܕ ܫܠܝܚܐ ܦܘܠܘܣ‬
̣
̇
‫ܠܡܘܠܟܢܐ܇ ܟܕ ܐܠܗܐ ̣̇ܩܕܡ ܚܕ ܡܕܡ ܡܝܬܪܐ ܡܛܠܬܢ܇ ܕܐܠ ܒܠܥܕܝܢ ܢܫܬܡܠܘܢ܀‬ ̈ ‫ܕܐܣܬܗܕܘ ܒܝܕ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܐܠ ̇ܩܒܠܘ ܐܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܟܠܗܘܢ‬
̣
Greek text (at 106, in apparatus): Τινές φασι, πῶς ἄν εἴποιμεν εἰσεληλυθέναι τὸν λῃστης εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, τοῦ
Ἀποστόλου τοὺς ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ἀπαριθμησάμενος δικαίους ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἐβραίους ἐπιστολῇ, δικαιωθέντας διὰ τῆς
πίστεως, καὶ ἐπαγαγόντος, καὶ οὗτοι πάντες μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως, οὐκ ἐκομίσαντο τῆν ἐπαγγελίαν, τοῦ
Θεοῦ περὶ ἡμῶν κρεῖττόν τι προβλεψαμένου, ἵνα μὴ χωρὶς ἡμῶν τελειωθῶσι.
All translations are mine.

15
referring to those who are mentioned in the previous lines of Paul’s epistle, Heb 11:4-38.
Accordingly, the thief is not concerned by this passage, and did enter Paradise.53
The second refutation, by contrast, focuses on Jesus’ promise in Luke 23:43. It argues
that there is no contradiction with Paul’s statement because the thief is not in Paradise yet, but
that the promise was uttered in a way that would have led one to think that this was case. This
claim is based on the argument that Jesus speaks of the future as of something already
existing. The biblical passages quoted in support to this claim are John 3:18 and 5:24.54 This
opinion, as well as the two citations from John, coincide with the first refutation by John
Chrysostom to the second claim he attributes to the Manichaeans. As we have seen above, he
too quotes John 3:18 and 5:24 to show that Jesus speaks of the future. This second refutation
can thus be identified as John Chrysostom’s position. In turn, this identification supports the
idea, exposed above, that the opinion to be condemned may stem from Manichaeans.
Then, Severus presents a third refutation, which continues along the lines of the
previous one, by emphasizing the claim that Jesus’ promise concerns the future and not the
present through a syntactical argument:

Others also force this verse to this meaning by saying that we must put a punctuation
mark on it, to read Truly, I am telling you today. And then add this: You will be with me in
paradise, so that this promise seems to be about the time to come. That’s what they say.55

53
Hom. 22 (PO 37), 106, ll. 12-18 (Syr.) (and 107, ll. 10-15 for the French trans.): “Some say (to this) that the
apostle did not put the thief with those he listed, but ignored him, as having already earned what was promised.
For this he did not simply say and without adding any difference: “All those who were witnesses of the faith, did
not receive the promises,” but he said: “All those,” applying his sentence by the use of the demonstrative to those
only who were listed and counted, and among whom the thief was not listed.” See Moss 2013: 238 and fn. 41,
where this future-oriented interpretation is discussed as one of Severus’ exegetical modes [doesn’t the future
based interpretation apply to the second refutation, not this one?]. Yes, absolutely, thank you very much for
catching this! I moved the sentence below, at the end of fn. 54.
54
Hom. 22 (PO 37), 106, ll. 19-28 (Syr.) (and 107, ll. 16-24 for the French trans.): “But others say: The thief has
not yet earned the stay in paradise, but, because of his sincerity and the intrepidity of his confession, Our Lord
has spoken to him in this way: Today you will be with me in Paradise. He did indeed say: Heaven and earth will
pass away, but my words will not pass away (Mc 13:31). For there is, they say again, in the words of Our Lord,
such a way of speaking of the future, as already existing, as when he says: He who does not believe, behold, he is
already judged (Jn 3:18), and again: Truly, I tell you: He who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has
eternal life and he does not go to judgment, but he has passed from death to life (Jn 5:24). See Moss 2013: 238
and fn. 41, where this future-oriented interpretation is discussed as one of Severus’ exegetical modes.
55
Hom. 22 (PO 37), 106, l. 29 – 108, l. 4 (Syr.) (and 107, l. 25 – 109, 3 for the French trans.):
‫ܕܙܕܩ܆ ܕܟܕ ̇ܣܝܡܝܢܢ ܒܗ ܢܘܩܙܐ ܬܚܬܝܐ ܒܡܨܥܬܗ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܡܪܝܢ ܓܝܪ‬ ̇ .‫ ܐܦ ܠܗ ܠܦܬܓܡܐ ܕܒܪܝܢ ܒܩܛܝܪܐ‬.‫ܐܚܖܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܠܘܬ ܣܘܟܐܠ ܗܢܐ‬ ̈
‫ܢܣܬܒܪ‬ ̇ ̇
̣ ‫ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܟܝܬ ܕܡܕܝܢ܆ ܠܘܬ ܙܒܢܐ ܕܥܬܝܕ‬.‫ ܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܝܘܡܢܐ܆ ܘܗܟܢܐ ܒܬܪܟܢ ܢܝܬܐ܇ ܗܝ ܕܥܡܝ ܬܗܘܐ ܒܦܪܕܝܣܐ‬:‫ܢܩܪܝܘܗܝ‬ ̣
‫ ܐܐܠ ܗܠܝܢ ̇ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ܀‬.‫ ̣ܗܘ ܫܘܘܕܝܐ‬.‫ܕܚܐܪ‬
̇
Greek text (at 107, in apparatus): ἄλλοι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις τὴν ἔννοιαν καὶ τὸ ῥητὸν ἐκβιάςονται· λέγουσι γὰρ δεῖν
ὑποστίςοντας ἀναγινώσκειν, ἀμὴν λέγω σοι σήμερον, εἶθ’ οὕτως ἐπιφέρειν τὸ μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ, ὡς
εἰς τὸν μέλλοντα χρόνον δοκεῖν ἀφορᾷν τὴν ὑπόσχεσιν. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν οὗτοι.

16
While the identification of these “others” remains an open question, it is interesting to remark
that a similar punctuation mark, or an equivalent of it, is attested in some manuscripts of the
Greek, Coptic and Syriac versions of the Gospel of Luke.56 In the famous, early fourth-
century Codex Vaticanus (Vat. gr. 1209), p. 1347, for example, a dot is visible after the word
“today” (σήμερον);57 considering the layout of the page and the distance separating each
letter, it is probable that this dot has been added by a later hand. The specific reasons for its
addition are unknown, but the explanation reported by Severus could offer a precise
theological and polemical context for it: it could be a reaction to the Manichaean
interpretation of Luke 23:43 as a denial of the bodily resurrection.58 Two other textual
traditions of the gospels emanating from and circulating in areas where Manichaean presence
in late antiquity is well attested, also feature marks of separation between the two parts of the
biblical sentence, so that “today” refers to the first rather than to the second part. For the
Coptic tradition, this reading is attested in the oldest manuscript of the Sahidic text of the
Bible, which represented the vulgate from the fifth century onwards in all Egypt, including
northern and western regions where the Manichaean communities were settled. The so-called
Barcelona Codex (fifth century), followed by two medieval witnesses (datable to the tenth-

eleventh century), bears the variant where the particle ϫⲉ (“that”) follows, rather than

precedes, the word ⲉ (“today”): it thus reads I tell you today that… (ϯϫⲉ ⲉⲉⲉⲉ

ⲉⲉⲉ ⲉ ϫⲉ ⲉⲉⲉϣ ⲉⲉⲉ ⲉⲉⲉⲉⲉ ϩⲉ ⲉⲉⲉⲉⲉⲉⲉⲉⲉ) instead of I tell you that

today.... (ϫⲉ ⲉ ).59 In the Syriac tradition, the Curetonian manuscript, also datable to

56
The critical edition of the New Testament, by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland (28th ed., 2012) does not signal
these variants. Farrar 2017: 185-208, surveys the punctuation of various New Testament Greek manuscripts and
mentions the Syriac versions (at 189-191). He also briefly presents how patristic authors dealt with this syntactic
ambiguity (at 191-193). He highlights that most of them follow the most common reading (“Paradise today”),
whereas others, such as Macarius Magnus, John Cassian and Hesychius of Jerusalem, acknowledge the existence
of the alternative reading (“I tell you today”) and refute it. Among the supporters of the alternative reading,
Farrar suggests Diodore of Tarsus as a possibility, given that his interpretation of this Lukan verse does not
survive (at 192).
57
The manuscript is accessible online at https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209.
58
Van Esbroeck 1983: 333 also reads the opinion reported by Severus as a response to the Manichaean
interpretation: “[Sévère] mentionne pour la première fois une réponse exégétique contre l’interprétation
manichéenne. Un point doit séparer ‘aujourd’hui’ et ‘tu seras avec moi’.”
59
P.Palau Ribes Inv. 181 (= Codex de Barcelone), p. 182. This manuscript, whose provenance is unknown, is
edited in Quecke 1977. The two medieval witnesses are Paris, BnF copte 129(8), f. 144r (accessible online at
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b100919381/f116); and Paris, BnF copte 129(9), f. 30r (accessible online at
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b100915550/f62), both coming from the White Monastery. Their variant is
signaled in the apparatus of the edition in Horner 1911-1924: 2.452 (designated as MSS 90 and 91 respectively).
Seven Sahidic manuscripts follow the prevailing variant. This variant is not attested in Bohairic (see Horner
1898-1905), and the Gospel of Luke is not preserved in Lycopolitan. I am extremely grateful to my colleague

17
the fifth century and coming from Egypt,60 contains the Old Syriac version of the gospels and
has the same variant, against the rest of the tradition; the preposition dalat (“that” or
introducing direct speech) is placed after, rather than before, the word yawmana (“today”): I
tell you today that you will be with me in the Garden of Eden ( ‫ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܝܘܡܢܐ ܕܥܡܝ ܬܗܘܐ‬
‫)ܒܓܢܬ ܥܕܢ‬.61 Potentially, these biblical variants in Greek, Coptic and Syriac could reflect the
awareness of the discussions raised by this verse, and could represent a response to an
interpretation that would threaten the doctrine of the resurrection. Specifically, they could
have originated to avoid the (Manichaean?) interpretation that the thief did not enter Paradise
with his body, and to defend the understanding that he enters, just not yet, but at the end of
times.
Apparently, Severus does not adhere completely to the previous refutations, since he
enunciates a fourth opinion that he presents as the “true exegesis” (‫ܫܪܪܗ ܕܝܢ ܕܦܘܫܩܢܐ ܗܢܐ‬, τὸ δὲ
ἀληθὲς τῆς ἐξηγήσεως) This may be due to the kinds of argument on which the previous
refutations are based, namely philological, grammatical, and syntactical.62 By contrast,
Severus’ exegesis focuses on the meaning of the promise and seeks to determine the sense of
the terms employed in both citations. Severus claims indeed that the goods that have been
promised to the thief and to all humanity are the kingdom of heaven and not Paradise, and
appeals to Matt 3:2 and 6:10 to illustrate it.63
He immediately envisages an objection to that claim:

But maybe someone will say: The kingdom of heaven and Paradise are the same thing,
because they are two names of a reality that is the same.64

Anne Boud’hors for helping me navigate the world of the Coptic Bible and providing me with all this valuable
information.
60
The “Codex Curetonianus” (= MS London, Brit. Libr. Add. 14451) comes from Dayr al-Suryan in the Nitrian
desert: for its description, see Wright 1870-1872: 1. No. CXIX.
61
Kiraz 2004: 3.486 (Luke 23:43).
62
The grammatical nature of these arguments has been highlighted by Roux 2002: “Ces trois explications
essaient de résoudre la difficulté sur la base de considérations grammaticales : la ponctuation, la valeur des
temps verbaux dans la langue de Jésus, le sens du démonstratif.”
63
Hom. 22 (PO 37), 108, ll. 5-10 (Syr.) (and 109, ll. 4-8 for the French trans.): “But the true exegesis is this:
these goods promised to us are the kingdom of heaven and not the delights of paradise. When Our Lord was
preaching: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is there (Mt 3:2), he said so, without (speaking) neither of entering
nor of leaving paradise; and he commanded us to pray and to say: May your kingdom come! (Mt 6:10), without
any question of staying in paradise.”
64
Hom. 22 (PO 37), 108, ll. 11-13 (Syr.) (and 109, ll. 9-11 for the French trans.):
.‫ܟܘܢܝܐ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܥܠ ܚܕ ܣܘܥܪܢܐ ܕܣܝܡ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܝܬܝܗ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘܦܪܕܝܣܐ܇ ܟܕ ܬܪܝܢ‬
̇ ‫ܕܗܘ ܟܕ ̣ܗܘ ܡܕܡ‬
̣ ‫ ܢܐܡܪ ܐܢܫ܆‬.‫ܐܐܠ ܟܒܪ‬
Greek text (at 108, in apparatus): ἀλλ’ἴσως ἐρεῖ ὡς ταὐτόν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ ὁ παράδεισος, δύο
προσηγοριῶν οὐσῶν περὶ ἕν πρᾶγμα τὸ ὑποκείμενον.

18
This objection coincides with the one attributed, at greater length, to the Manichaeans by John
Chrysostom (what we labelled above the “Manichaean claim 2”, i.e. that Jesus used Paradise
as a more common synonym of the kingdom of heaven to be understood by the thief). And
Severus’ reply is identical to the second one that Chrysostom employed to refute the first
Manichaean claim: he too quotes Paul (1 Cor 2:9) to demonstrate that the kingdom of heaven
and Paradise are two different things. The dependence on Chrysostom goes beyond the
borrowing of the same claims and the same scriptural proofs: Severus cites Chrysostom’s very
words, without acknowledging it, when he prolongs the Pauline citation with the following
comment: “On the contrary, Paradise, even Adam’s eye saw it, even his ear heard it.” The
Greek text of Severus is almost identical to Chrysostom’s: Τὸν δὲ παράδεισον καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς
εἶδε τοῦ ʼΑδάμ, καὶ οὖς ἤκουσε (Chrysostom);65 Τὸν δὲ παράδεισον καὶ ὀφθαλμὸς εἶδε τοῦ
ʼΑδὰμ, καὶ οὖς ἤκουεν (Severus).66
Similarly, Severus concludes, just as Chrysostom did, by quoting Heb 11:40 and stating
that the thief has not yet been resurrected. He thus shows that Jesus’ promise of Paradise is
not in contradiction with Paul’s words; on the contrary, Paradise as per Luke 23:43 designates
a resting place for the souls, before they are rewarded with the admission into the kingdom of
heaven.
The following table offers an overview of the abovementioned correspondences
between Chrysostom’s and Severus’ texts:

John Chrysostom, Sermon on Genesis 7 Severus of Antioch, Homily 22

65
Serm. Gen. 7.5 (SC 433), 336, ll. 355-356.
66
Hom. 22 (PO 37), 108-109 (in apparatus). The borrowing of Chrysostom’s own words would suggest that
Severus worked directly with Chrysostom’s text rather than with a repertoire of arguments and scriptural proofs
on the topic in question that would have also been used by Chrysostom.

19
Manichaean claim 1: the thief has received the Manichaean claim 1: For some people say: How can
reward, the resurrection of the bodies does not we say that the thief entered Paradise given Heb
exist 11:39-40?

- Refutation 1: body and soul are inseparable Some say (to this): restrictive interpretation of Heb
(2 Cor 5:10, 1 Cor 15:53) 11:39-40, the thief did enter Paradise
- Refutation 2: Paradise vs. Kingdom of Heaven
But others say: Jesus speaks of the future (Jn 3:18,
(1 Cor 2:9)
5:24)
Manichaean claim 2: Paradise = Kingdom of
Others also force this verse: I am telling you today,
Heaven
that…

- Refutation 1: Jesus speaks of the future But the true exegesis is this: Paradise vs. Kingdom of
(Jn 3:18, 5:24) Heaven (1 Cor 2:9)
- Refutation 2: Nobody has resurrected yet
(Heb 11:13, Heb 11:40) Manichaean claim 2: But maybe someone will say:
Paradise = Kingdom of Heaven

Refutation: Nobody had resurrected yet (Heb 11:40)

We observe that all the topics present in John Chrysostom’s Sermon have been reused by
Severus, except for the demonstration that body and soul are inseparable (Chrysostom’s
refutation 1 to the Manichaean claim 1). Severus’ relationship to Chrysostom is not univocal:
one of Chrysostom’s refutations (refutation 1 of Manichaean claim 2) is reported by Severus
as the second reply to the main question, and he does not endorse it, whereas two other
refutations by Chrysostom (refutations 2 to the Manichaean claims 1 and 2) are accepted and
adopted by Severus as his own. In addition, Severus did not reiterate the order of
Chrysostom’s reasoning, but used it organically in a new composition, where he inserted other
opinions, not present in his major source. This situation may be a sign of the evolution of the
exegesis of Luke 23:43 over time.
The availability of Chrysostom’s writings to Patriarch Severus can easily be explained
by the geographical context of the see of Antioch and its rich patriarchal library.67 Moreover,
Severus’ frequent use of Chrysostom is attested in other works of his: Chrysostom, together
with Cyril of Alexandria, is probably the most quoted church father in Severus.68 The fact that
Severus does not mention Chrysostom by name as his source should not surprise us. It is the
67
Thus, Severus would have become acquainted with the patriarchal library and the local traditions of Antioch in
a rather short period of time, since he was appointed patriarch in November of 512, namely only five months
before delivering his Homily 22, in April of 513.
68
See Allen 2016: 1-13; and Voicu 2014: 633-643.

20
habit of late antique theologians to refer to previous authors without explicit attribution.
Rather, the contrary is the exception: whenever Severus acknowledges his sources, it is in a
context of demonstration where he needs to stress the authority of the proofs which would
support his claim. Indeed, in Homily 22, the excursus on Luke 23:43, while being inscribed in
the context of a demonstration against the Dyophysites, is not in itself polemical. Rather, as
recalled above, this excursus is characterized by the exegetical method applied to dicta, which
admits the legitimacy of multiple opinions. Contrary to the excursus, in the parts of the
homily that precede it, which address the Dyophysites, Severus does quote by name several
patristic authorities, such as Cyril of Alexandria, upon which he bases his refutation, as well
as his adversaries, such as Nestorius and Pope Leo. The excursus belongs to another realm, to
exegesis, rather than to theology, where there is room for diversity and the appeal to named
supporters and opponents is less relevant.69
Coming back to my initial hypothesis, these similarities may thus point to an Antiochian
context, and the interpretation of Luke 23:43 in support of the denial of the bodily
resurrection could be the position of the Manichaean community in Antioch. Yet, one element
remains problematic: why does Severus leave anonymous this interpretation and does not
attribute it to the Manichaeans, since, as we have just showed, he knew and used John
Chrysostom’s sermon which explicitly refutes the Manichaeans and their exegesis of this
verse? For such an anti-Manichaean opponent like Severus, it would have been a great
opportunity to denounce the Manichaeans on this front as well. To explain why he left their
opinion anonymous, several possibilities, whether socio-historical, textual or content-related,
come to mind: 1) given that the main target of the homily are the Nestorians, Severus
strategically chose not to mention by name other adversaries, in order to keep the attention of
his audience focused on what mattered the most for him in that specific occasion; 2) there was
no need for an explicit attribution, since the simple mention of “some say” followed by a
claim which questions the traditional dogmas of the Church would have sufficed to make the
audience understand that the Manichaeans were intended;70 3) the claim is outdated and by
Severus’ time, in the sixth century, Manichaeans did not defend this interpretation anymore;
4) Severus knew or discovered that John Chrysostom misattributed this opinion to the
Manichaeans, and he did not want to repeat a mistake, but kept the opinion as one among

69
See Moss 2016b: 804-807.
70
The Manichaeans were indeed mentioned and condemned in a previous intervention by Severus to the same
audience: Homily 21, delivered two days before our Homily 22, namely on April 3, 513. See Alpi 2004.

21
numerous exegeses of the verse;71 5) due to accidents in the textual transmission,
Chrysostom’s sermon reached Severus deprived of the mention of the Manichaeans. The first
option seems to be the most likely, when we compare this homily to the other contexts in
which Severus attacks the Manichaeans: the Cathedral Homily 123 is entirely devoted to
them, and even when Severus accuses other adversaries of being Manichaeans, thus using the
term as a polemical label, he never does so against the Dyophysites, but rather against the
followers of Eutychius and of Julian of Halicarnassus.72 Indeed, he leverages that label for
doctrines that, according to his creed, diminish or deny Christ’s humanity. A polemical
association of Nestorians and Manichaeans would thus have not been fruitful for him, just
distracting.
At any rate, as highlighted above, the denial of the resurrection of the bodies attributed
to the Manichaeans by John Chrysostom corresponds to an authentic Manichaean doctrine,
attested by multiple sources. The association of this doctrine with Luke 23:43 may provide
new lenses through which we can look back at the other polemical sources and detect an
implicit anti-Manichaean polemic in some of them, and consequently an indirect allusion to
the Manichaean interpretation of Luke 23:43 in support of the denial of the bodily
resurrection.

4. Implicit anti-Manichaean polemic

This implicit anti-Manichaean dimension could underlie Ephrem’s treatment of Luke 23:43.
In his Hymn on Paradise 8, this verse prompts a whole reasoning about the resurrection,
where the emphasis is put on the unity of body and soul:

I behold a dwelling there

and a tabernacle of light,
a voice proclaiming
“Blessed is the Thief
who has freely received
the keys to Paradise.”
I imagined that he was already there,
but then I considered
how the soul cannot
have perception of Paradise
71
This possibility is not farfetched, given that philological and bibliographical research characterizes Severus’
use of previous writings: see Grant 1960: 13-24, for Severus’ attention to the textual problems in Ignatius of
Antioch’s and Irenaeus of Lyon’s writings, as well as his avoidance of forgeries for compiling his dossiers of
patristic authorities; and Moss 2016a: 206, fn. 35, for Severus’ search in the corpus of 3000 letters of Isidore of
Pelusium, for argumentative purposes.
72
See Alpi 2004: 234-235.

22
 without its mate, the body,
its instrument and lyre.
(Hymn on Paradise 8, 2)

Ephrem’s position is that, since the body of the robber could not go to Paradise, the
resurrection has not taken place yet, and the robber is not inside Paradise, but outside of it, on
the surrounding wall, waiting for the last judgment and the reunion with his body. This stanza
has been interpreted as a reaction against Bardaisan and his rejection of the bodily
resurrection.73 I argue that it could also be targeted at the Manichaean doctrine, especially
given the context suggested by John Chrysostom’s sermon, namely the connection with the
promise to the good robber.

5. Manichaean Interpretations of Luke 23:43 to Deny the Resurrection of the Bodies

Finally, if, with this same connection in mind (i.e. Jesus’ promise to the good thief and bodily
resurrection), we look back at the Manichaean sources alluding to Luke 23:43 quoted at the
beginning of this paper, we observe that the reference to this verse is accompanied by a
rejection of the body and the material world. For example, the Psalm to Jesus 242 cited above
seems to imply such a theological assumption:74

A robber was saved upon the cross because he did but

Acknowledge you; you forgot all the sins that he
Had committed, you remembered all his good.

All worldly Matter that surrounds me – burn it today,

I beseech you. Cleanse me from all the sins, for
I too have hung on your hope.

Here, the interpretation of the thief as the model of the believer who is saved and forgiven, is
accompanied by the notion of the destruction of matter and, consequently, by an implicit
apology for the resurrection of the soul. Yet, the relevant Manichaean sources, as we said
above, are all liturgical; John Chrysostom, on the contrary, attests to an exegetical practice.

73
See De Francesco 2006, 228, fn. 5.
74
This is also the case of the other Psalm to Jesus, Psalm to Jesus 271 (my emphasis): “Jesus, king of the holy,
take me… / O Christ, whom I have loved, belonging unto you, I fell into the snares / of the body of death. The
trappers that set traps for me brought me / beneath their nets […] / I broke their snares, I burst their nets by the
faith of your Truth […] / I heard the power of your living cry, I followed / You, I put down the nets of Error, I
took the / Nets from the man in unto life, I let the dead / Bury the dead, I stepped in with your cross, / I hung to
the right of you, because I received the / Blessing: henceforth take me with you to the Paradise of the holy
Gods.” (PsBk II, p. 89-90).

23
The two Manichaean contexts for the use of Luke 23:43 are, thus, different. I suggest
overcoming this apparent incompatibility by claiming that the exegesis lies behind the
liturgical expression, or, otherwise stated, that ritual hymns, like those where the allusions to
Luke 23:43 are found, are theologically based on doctrinal conceptions matured in exegetical
contexts. Therefore, even if we do not have Manichaean sources openly displaying an
exegesis of Luke 23:43, the preserved liturgical documents presuppose such an exegesis.
Furthermore, John Chrysostom speaks of the Manichaean interpretation in a sermon
which is situated in a specific temporal and liturgical setting: as recalled above, Chrysostom
pronounced this homily during Lent 386, in the fasting period preceding Easter, which, that
year, was celebrated on April 5th.75 Thus, John Chrysostom delivered his homily sometime in
March, namely the time in the year where the Manichaeans would celebrate their annual
Bema festival. This ceremony is preceded by a month of fasting.76 In opening his
condemnation of the Manichaean reading of Luke 23:43, John Chrysostom mentions a
concrete detail that would allude to such a fasting:

An issue arises that is not a chance one, namely the Manichaeans, stupid and rabid dogs,
presenting an appearance of mildness, but having on the inside the savage fury of dogs,
wolves in sheep’s clothing. Lest you look to appearances, however, examine instead the
wild beast hidden within. These people, then, seize upon this passage to claim…

Apart from recurring to well-known heresiological topoi, such as the madness and the
deceitful disguise of the adversaries,77 Chrysostom highlights the “appearance of mildness”
(τὸ σχῆμα ἐπιεικείας) of the Manichaeans: albeit Chrysostom uses it in the traditional way,
namely for polemically opposing the inner fury of his enemies and their outward virtuous
aspect, this expression may hint to the conduct of Manichaean believers, ruled by ascetical
practices that provoke physical emaciation. Given the time in the year where Chrysostom
delivers his sermon, they could refer more precisely to the Manichaean long fast in the month
leading to the Bema feast-day. Following this reasoning, we may further deduce from
Chrysostom that during that month of fasting, in preparation for the Bema festival, or during
one of the Bema rituals, the Manichaeans were reading passages containing a reference to
Luke 23:43. In other words, we may deduce that the Psalms to Jesus in particular, usually
considered “psalms on the ascension of the soul to the Land of Light” at the moment of death,

75
Grumel 1958, table at 267.
76
For a detailed presentation of the Manichaean Bema festival, see Sundermann 1989.
77
For the stereotypical portrait of the Manichaeans, and of heretics in general, in Chrysostom’s works, see
Brottier 1998, 165, fn. 6 and 8. The deceitful appearance of the Manichaeans is stressed in several anti-
Manichaean authors, such as Titus of Bostra, Against the Manichaeans 4.43 and Augustin, De moribus 2.20.74.

24
namely funerary psalms,78 were also performed during the confession of sins preceding the
ritual meal of the Bema, where it was believed that either Mani or Jesus himself would sit on
the throne to judge mankind, in a simulation of the last judgment taking place at the end of
time.

Conclusion

From the survey of the Manichaean interpretations of Luke 23:43, which promote the figure
of the thief as model of the righteous believer, it emerges that John Chrysostom’s Sermon on
Genesis 7 stands out for uniquely reporting a Manichaean reading of the verse as a proof
denying the resurrection of the bodies. The Manichaean exegesis that Chrysostom quotes is
articulated, and touches also upon the question of the nature of Paradise and its identity – or
lack thereof – with the kingdom of heaven, a topic of debate since the early Christian
centuries. Rather than being used only in a rhetorical way by the Golden Mouth to settle this
intra-Christian debate evidently still current in his times, the interpretation he ascribed to the
Manichaeans seems authentic for several reasons. In particular, the sociological explanation
constitutes a strong argument in this respect, since it resonates with Manichaean exegetical
methods attested elsewhere.
The comparison with a later, yet geographically close source, namely Severus of
Antioch’s Homily 22, reveals that the sixth-century Patriarch knew and used Chrysostom’s
work, although without explicitly mentioning it. Severus’ silence about the Manichaean
paternity of the position he condemned is surprising, but can be explained on internal
grounds, namely on the content of the Homily, preoccupied with the Christological
controversy and targeted against the Dyophysites. Thus, Severus’ quote of the position that
Chrysostom attributes to the Manichaeans as a thesis to be rejected further suggests that Luke
23:43 was taken by Manichaeans in support of the resurrection of the soul alone and of the
identity of Paradise and the kingdom of heaven.
In turn, the double attestation of John Chrysostom and Severus offers a clue to the
possibility that Luke 23:43 was used in this way by the Manichaeans not only in Antioch, but
more broadly in the Syro-Mesopotamian area. In other words, based on their attestation, it is
worth reexamining the cases where the exegesis of Luke 23:43 is present, both in Manichaean
and anti-Manichaean sources. The Coptic versions of the Manichaean Psalms in Egypt would

78
See Dubois 2017: 68-75.

25
reflect this interpretation, where the praise of the thief is joined to an invocation of the final
destruction of matter; Ephrem the Syrian could be reacting to it in his eulogy to the union of
body and soul at the time of resurrection. It would be necessary to reconsider from this
perspective, offered by John Chrysostom and Severus of Antioch, all the other sources from
that area to see if there are implicit and indirect traces of this Manichaean interpretation.

Bibliography
Allberry, Charles R. C. A. 1938. A Manichaean Psalm-Book. Part II. Manichaean
Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library II. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
Allen, Pauline. 2016. “Severus of Antioch: Heir of Saint John Chrysostom?” In: J. D’Alton &
Y. Youssef (eds.), Severus of Antioch: His Life and Times (Texts and Studies in Eastern
Christianity 7), Leiden: Brill. 1–13.
Alpi, Frédéric. 2004. “Les manichéens et le manichéisme dans les Homélies cathédrales de
Sévère d’Antioche (512-518): observations sur l’HC 123 et sur quelques passages négligés.”
ARAM 16: 233–243.
Bitton-Ashkelony, Brouria & Lorenzo Perrone (eds.). 2013. Personal and Institutional
Religion: Thought and Praxis in Eastern Christianity. Turnhout: Brepols.
Brière, M. & F. Graffin (eds. and trans.). 1975. Les Homiliae Cathédrales de Sévère
d’Antioche, traduction syriaque de Jacques d’Edesse. Homélies 18 à 25. Patrologia Orientalis
37/1. Turnhout: Brepols.
Brottier, Laurence. 1998. Jean Chrysostome. Sermons sur la Genèse, introduction, texte
critique, traduction et notes. Sources Chrétiennes 433. Paris: Cerf.
The American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project. Vol.
2: The Gospel according to Luke 13-24. 1987. Clarendon: Oxford.
Bilby, Mark G. 2012. “As the Bandit Will I Confess You: Luke 23.29-43 in Early Christian
Interpretation.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia.
Bockmuehl, Markus. 2010. “Locating Paradise.” In: M. Bockmuehl & G. G. Stroumsa (eds.),
Paradise in Antiquity. Jewish and Christian Views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
192–209.
Coyle, Kevin. 2009. Manichaeism and Its Legacy. NHMS 69. Leiden: Brill.

Cramer, John Antony. 1844. Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum, t. 2:

Catenae in Evangelia s. Lucae et s. Joannis. Oxford.
De Francesco, Ignazio (trans.). 2006. Efrem il Siro. Inni sul Paradiso (Letture cristiane del
primo millenio 39), Milano: Paoline.
De Wet, Chris L. 2011. “John Chrysostom’s Exegesis on the Resurrection on 1 Corinthians
15.” Neotestamentica 45/1: 92–114.

26
De Wet, Chris L. 2014. “Identity Formation and Alterity in John Chrysostom’s In Epistulam
Ad Galatas Commentarius.” Acta Theologica Supplementum 19: 18–41.
De Wet, Chris L. 2021. “Manichaeism in John Chrysostom’s Heresiology.” in J. van Oort,
ed., Manichaeism and Early Christianity. Selected Papers from the 2019 Pretoria Congress
and Consultation. NHMS 99. Leiden: Brill. 225–252.
Delumeau, Jean. 1992. Une histoire du Paradis. Le jardin des délices, Paris: Fayard.
Dubois, Jean-Daniel. 2017. “The Coptic Manichaean Psalm to Jesus (n° 245).” In: S. N. C.
Lieu (ed.), Manichaeism East and West. Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Analecta
Manichaica 1. Turnhout: Brepols. 68–75.
Farrar, Thomas. 2017. “Today in Paradise?” Neotestamentica 51/2: 185–208.
Filoramo, Giovanni and Ilaria Ramelli. 2014. “Paradise.” In: A. Di Berardino (ed.), J.T. Papa
et. al. (trans.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, Translated by J. T. Papa, et al. 3 vols.
Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic. Volume 3:65–68.
Franzmann, Majella. 2003. Jesus in the Manichaean Writings, London/New York: T & T
Clark.
Gardner, Iain. 2015. “Mani’s Last Days.” In: I. Gardner, J. BeDuhn, & P. Dilley, Mani at the
Court of the Persian Kings. Studies on the Chester Beatty Kephalaia Codex. NHMS 87.
Leiden: Brill. 159–208.
Geerard, Maurice & J. Noret (eds.). 1974-1987, 1998, 2003. Clavis Patrum Graecorum. 5
vols. Turnhout: Brepols. [=CPG].

Grant, Robert M. 1960. “The Appeal to the Early Fathers.” The Journal of Theological
Studies 11/1: 13–24.
Grumel, Venance. 1958. Traité d’études byzantines. I. La Chronologie. Bibliothèque
byzantine. Paris : Presses universitaires de France.
Gulácsi, Zsuzsanna. 2021. “The Diatessaronic Sequence of Mani’s Sermon on the Life of
Christ in the Berlin Kephalaia.” In: J. van Oort (ed.), Manichaeism and Early Christianity.
Selected Papers from the 2019 Pretoria Congress and Consultation. NHMS 99. Leiden: Brill.
35–50.
Henning, Walter B. 1936. Ein Manichäisches Bet- und Beichtbuch. APAW.PH 10. Berlin:
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Hill, Robert C. 2004. St. John Chrysostom. Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis, Brookline,
Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press.
Holl, Karl. 1922. Epiphanius. Ancoratus und Panarion. Band 2: Panarion haer. 34–64,
Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Horner, George. 1898-1905. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern
Dialect: Otherwise Called Memphitic and Bohairic. 7 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

27
Horner, George. 1911-1924. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern
Dialect: Otherwise Called Sahidic and Thebaic. 7 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kiraz, George A. (ed.). 2004. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels: Aligning the
Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions. 4 vols. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
Leloir, Louis. 1966. Éphrem de Nisibe. Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant ou
Diatessaron. Traduit du syriaque et de l’arménien. Introduction, traduction et notes. Sources
chrétiennes 121. Paris: Cerf.
Lieu, Judith. 2015. Marcion and the Making of a Heretic. God and Scripture in the Second
Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mara, Maria Grazia. 2008. “Aspetti della polemica antimanichea di Giovanni Crisostomo.”
In: L. Padovese (ed.), Atti dell’undicesimo simposio paolino: Paolo tra Tarso e Antiochia.
Archeologia/storia/religione, Rome: Antonianum. 195–199.
Morano, Enrico. 1998. “My Kingdom is not of this world: Revisiting the Great Parthian
Crucifixion Hymn.” In: N. Sims-Williams (ed.), Proceedings of the Third European
Conference of Iranian Studies. I. Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Beiträge zur Iranistik 17.
Wiesbaden: Reichert. 131–145.
Moss, Yonatan. 2013. “‘Packed with Patristic Testimonies:’ Severus of Antioch and the
Reinvention of the Church Fathers,” In: Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony & Lorenzo Perrone (eds.),
Personal and Institutional Religion: Thought and Praxis in Eastern Christianity. Turnhout:
Brepols.
Moss, Yonatan. 2016a. Incorruptible Bodies. Christology, Society, and Authority in Late
Antiquity. Christianity in Late Antiquity 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Moss, Yonatan. 2016b. “Saving Severus: How Severus of Antioch’s Writings Survived in
Greek.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56: 785–808.
Nestle, Eberhard & Kurt Aland. 2012. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Münster:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Pedersen, Nils Arne. 2021. “Pelagius against the Manichaeans: Real Opponents or Clichéd
Heresiology?” In J. van Oort (ed.), Manichaeism and Early Christianity. Selected Papers
from the 2019 Pretoria Congress and Consultation. NHMS 99. Leiden: Brill. 324–350.
Pedersen, Nils Arne, René Falkenberg, John Møller Larsen & Claudia Leurini (eds.). 2020.
The New Testament Gospels in Manichaean Tradition. The Sources in Syriac, Greek, Coptic,
Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian, Bactrian, New Persian, and Arabic. Corpus Fontium
Manichaeorum, Biblia Manichaica 2. Turnhout: Brepols.
Quecke, Hans. 1977. Das Lukasevangelium Saidisch. Text Der Handschrift Ppalau Rib. Inv.-
NR. 181 Mit Den Varianten Der Handschrift M 569. Barcelona: Papyrologica Castroctaviana.
Rambault, Nathalie. 2013. Jean Chrysostome. Homélies sur la résurrection, l’ascension et la
pentecôte I. Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et index. Sources chrétiennes 561.
Paris: Cerf.

28
Richter, Sebastian. 1998. Psalm Book II,2. Die Herakleides-Psalmen. Corpus Fontium
Manichaeorum, Series Coptica 1. Turnhout: Brepols.
Roth, Dieter T. 2015. The Text of Marcion’s Gospel. New Testament Tools and Studies 49.
Leiden: Brill.
Roux, René. 2002. L’exégèse biblique dans les Homélies cathédrales de Sévère d’Antioche.
Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianium 84. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianium.
Scopello, Madelaine. 2005. “Julie, manichéenne d’Antioche (d’après la Vie de Porphyre de
Marc le diacre, ch. 85-91).” In: Madelaine Scopello (ed.), Femme, Gnose et Manichéisme.
NHMS 53. Leiden: Brill. 237–291.
Sundermann, Werner. 1989 (Last Updated 1989). “Bēma,” Encyclopedia Iranica Online:
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/bema-festival-manicheans.
Sundermann, Werner. 1996. “A Manichaean View on the Resurrection of the Body,” in C.
Altman Bromberg and P. O. Skjaervø, eds., Studies in Honor of Vladimir A. Livshits, Bulletin
of the Asian Institute, New Series 10: 187–194.
Sundermann, Werner. 1998 (Last Updated 2012). “Manichaean Eschatology,” Encyclopedia
Iranica Online: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/eschatology-ii.
Tardieu, Michel. 1987. “Principes de l’exégèse manichéenne du Nouveau Testament,” in
Michel Tardieu (ed.), Les règles de l’interprétation. Paris: Le Cerf. 123–146.
Tardieu, Michel. 1997. “Le procès de Jésus vu par les manichéens,” Apocrypha 8: 9-24.
Tardieu, Tardieu. 2021. “Antithèses en mutation, de Marcion à Mani,” in J. van Oort, ed.,
Manichaeism and Early Christianity. Selected Papers from the 2019 Pretoria Congress and
Consultation. NHMS 99. Leiden: Brill. 24–34.
Van den Berg, Jacob A. 2010. Biblical Argument in Manichaean Missionary Practice. NHMS
70. Leiden: Brill.
Van Esbroeck, Michael. 1983. “Une homélie inédite éphrémienne sur le bon larron en grec,
géorgien et arabe.” Analecta Bollandiana 101: 327–62.
Viciano, Albert. 2006. “Mani (216-276) and Manichaeism.” In: C. Kannengiesser (ed.),
Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity, Leiden: Brill. 647–669.
Voicu, Sever. 2014. “Quoting John Chrysostom in the Sixth Century: Severus of Antioch.”
In: Incontro di Studiosi dell’Antichità (ed.), La teologia dal V all’VII secolo fra sviluppo e
crisi: XLI Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità Cristiana. Studia ephemeridis Augustinianum
140. Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum. 633–643.
Wickes, Jeffrey T. 2015. St. Ephrem the Syrian: The Hymns on Faith. The Fathers of the
Church 130. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.
Williams, Frank. 2009. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1-46). NHMS
63. 2nd ed. revised and expanded. Leiden: Brill.
Wright, William. 1870-1872. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum
Acquired Since the Year 1838. 3 vols. London: Gilbert & Rivington.

29
30