波斯教殘經

Bōsījiào cánjīng 波斯教殘經

Fragmentary Sūtra of the Persian Religion anonymous (Tang-period Chinese Manichaean or Nestorian text, fragment, recovered from Dunhuang)

About the work

A single-juan fragmentary Tang-period Chinese non-Buddhist religious text from the Dunhuang Library Cave, preserved at T54 no. 2141B. The full title given by the modern editor (Luó Zhènyù 羅振玉) is Bōsījiào cánjīng (Dūnhuáng Mògāokū cángběn jīnguī jīngshī túshūguǎn, Yìjí cóngcán 15) 波斯教殘經（敦煌莫高窟藏本今歸京師圖書館，佚籍叢殘十五）— “Fragmentary Sūtra of the Persian Religion (Dunhuang Mògāokū holding now transferred to the Beijing Imperial Library, Lost Books Fragments series, no. 15)“.

Prefaces

The text opens with Luó Zhènyù’s modern bibliographical note (paraphrased):

Manuscript-sūtra one juan, the front-half already missing-and-lost, the back-half preserved well — but with no rear-title. My friend Línchuān Lǐ Zhènggāng 臨川李證剛, on the basis that within [the text] is dedicatedly expounded the bright-and-dark intent, citing the Jǐngjiào sānwēi méngdù zàn 景教三威蒙度讚 [the Christian Trisagion hymn of the Nestorian church in Tang China] as a place-of-correspondence, has decided that this is a Jǐngjiào (Nestorian Christian) canonical book.

However, examining: the great Zoroastrian, Manichaean, and Nestorian [traditions] are quite similar — not easy to distinguish. And all flowed in from Persia (波斯, Bōsī) to enter the Central Lands. Therefore [I] tentatively give it the title “Bōsījiào jīng” — Sutra of the Persian Religion — to await world-religious-studies scholars to verify.

(Xuāntǒng 3, 3rd month, Shàngyú Luó Zhènyù records.)

(Xuāntǒng 3, 3rd month = April 1911.)

The body of the text begins immediately afterward with substantive religious-doctrinal content, with extensive lacunae:

□□□□ if not encountering the cause, no path of self-liberation. Seeking salvation □□□□…

[The text continues through fragmentary doctrinal exposition — the surviving portion treats the dualism of Light and Darkness, the salvation-economy, and the practitioner’s path.]

Abstract

Authorship and date are unrecoverable. The text is the single most contested of the Chinese Manichaean / Persian-religion Dunhuang materials in terms of religious-tradition assignment: Lǐ Zhènggāng’s initial determination as Nestorian Christian (Jǐngjiào 景教) was challenged by Luó Zhènyù (the modern editor) and subsequently by Édouard Chavannes and Paul Pelliot (1913), who identified it as Manichaean rather than Nestorian.

Modern scholarly consensus (cf. Lín Wùshū 林悟殊, Móníjiào jí qí dōngjiàn, 1987 / 1997; Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, 1992) is that the text is Manichaean — based on the dualistic-cosmology framing, the technical-theological vocabulary, and the doctrinal close parallels with the better-attested KR6s0078 Móníjiào xiàbù zàn and KR6s0079 Móní guāngfó jiàofǎ yí luè. The “Persian Religion” 波斯教 designation — Luó Zhènyù’s deliberately-cautious title to leave the religious-tradition attribution open — has continued in use as a technical bibliographic convention while the Manichaean attribution is now standard.

notBefore = 700, notAfter = 1000 (the standard Dunhuang manuscript bracket; consistent with the Tang-period Chinese Manichaean missionary activity). Catalog dynasty 唐.

The work is one of the three principal Chinese-language Manichaean documents preserved in the Dunhuang manuscript-cache — together with KR6s0078 (the hymnal) and KR6s0079 (the imperial-presentation compendium). Its fragmentary state and the early scholarly debate over its religious-tradition assignment reflect the deep methodological challenges of identifying medieval Chinese non-Buddhist religious texts in fragmentary form.

Translations and research

• Édouard Chavannes and Paul Pelliot, “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine” (Journal Asiatique 1911 part 2, 1913 parts 1–2) — the foundational Western-language study, with the Manichaean attribution.
• Luó Zhèn-yù 羅振玉, Yì-jí cóng-cán 佚籍叢殘 (1911) — the original Chinese editorial publication.
• Lín Wù-shū 林悟殊, Mó-ní-jiào jí qí dōng-jiàn (Zhōng-huá Shū-jú, 1987 / 1997) — the standard Sinophone treatment.
• Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China (Mohr Siebeck, 1992) — comprehensive English treatment.
• Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road (HarperSanFrancisco, 1993).

Other points of interest

The 1911 attribution-debate between Lǐ Zhènggāng (Nestorian) and Luó Zhènyù (Persian / Manichaean) is one of the foundational moments of modern Chinese non-Buddhist-religious-history scholarship, and exemplifies the methodological difficulty of identifying late-Tang Manichaean and Nestorian materials in fragmentary form. The two religions shared substantial cosmological vocabulary (dualistic Light-Darkness frameworks, salvation-and-redemption narratives) and were both Persian-origin Tang-period imperial-recognized “three foreign religions” (alongside Zoroastrianism), making their textual outputs sometimes hard to distinguish.

Links

• DILA authority: (no preserved authority entry)
• CBETA: T54n2141B
• Religious context: Tang-period Chinese Manichaeanism (with disputed early attribution to Nestorian Christianity)
• Modern editor: Luó Zhènyù 羅振玉, Yìjí cóngcán 佚籍叢殘 (1911)
• Companion Chinese Manichaean texts: KR6s0078 Móníjiào xiàbù zàn, KR6s0079 Móní guāngfó jiàofǎ yí luè
• Modern attribution debate: Lǐ Zhènggāng (Nestorian, 1911) vs Luó Zhènyù / Chavannes-Pelliot (Manichaean / Persian)