Sheshbazzar

Unless Professor Gardner is able to produce a genuine Manichean document conclusively dated to earlier than 276 AD what he replies can be nothing more than at best an informed opinion.

Theories do not magically change into 'facts' simply by 'Appealing To Authority'.

Your 'Appeal to Authority' figures is a lame tactic. Want to bring in the Pope and Billy Graham to round out your panel of experts?

stephan huller

Yeah by God, who would want to hear from somebody who actually knows something about Manichaeanism? Crazy suggestion. The last thing we need in this discussion is someone who has actually seen and read the original material.

How do you know what Gardiner's biases are? I think you geniuses think that everyone who disagrees with your preposterous theories is somehow 'blinded' by a faith in God. For all we know Gardiner is an atheist. The deciding factor is his knowledge and familiarity with the primary sources. If the evidence was to lead him to come to a wacky thesis - like the one you guys are proposing - he'd embrace it.

How it is that you think that he is NOT the person to turn to in this debate is again mind-boggling.

I just think that he won't want to have anything to do with a bunch of wack-jobs on an internet board. But let's see ...

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps Professor Graham will prove to be a gentleman, and take the time to read the pages and pages of posts where you have repeatedly provoked and insulted the intelligence of anyone who would dare question or oppose any of your assertions or opinions.

Let him observe the level of arrogance and bombast you have been displaying.
We didn't pick this fight. You arrive here and think you can win us over by browbeating everyone into a submission to your superior intelligence, and to the kissing of your arse.

Your entire approach from the beginning has been offensive, ungentlemanly, and utterly unpersuasive.
If there is resistance, if there has been confrontation (and there is)
You are the one that provoked it, and that continues to provoke it.

It has been stated to you, over and over, that you have made your opinion clear.
We all now know what you think.
We do not need to be beat over the head with your opinions and your insults relentlessly.

Good Day Sir!

stephan huller

When someone says that all the experts are wrong and that the moon is really made of green cheese, it would be helpful if that person, or in this case - those people - had a coherent argument. A person like Iain Gardner has devoted his life to the study of the Manichaeans. It is so terribly depressing when I see people who want nothing to do with his life work and instead want to remain in the darkness of their own opinions.

I do not know Professor Gardner at all. But it would seem highly unlikely that someone who decided to devote himself to the study of a heresy would be a Bible thumper. I know from my own personal experience that becoming interested in the Marcionites had something to do with 'rescuing' a tradition from falling into a historical abyss.

While it is dangerous to make generalizations using yourself as a guide, I can't be that far off from the mark. Think of all the time he spends in the sweltering sun in Egypt. This is time that he could be having a barbeque with his neighbors or going off to work on the train. What I am getting at is that it is unlikely that someone would spend all this time attempting to uncover 'the truth' about the Manichaeans in some horrible country if his only aim was to vindicate the hostile opinions of the Church Fathers.

I picked Gardner to send my email actually because he seems like an exemplary scholar. Again he wouldn't be in Egypt if he thought that Epiphanius and the Acts of Archelaus were enough to establish the truth about the Manichaeans.

Don't worry though. I doubt very much that he will respond. We sound like a bunch of looney tunes establishing 360 posts over five days arguing about something as crazy as whether all the evidence established by every ancient witness to the Manichaeans could all be a big lie.

He's probably thinking we are all 'kuckoo, kuckoo.' :huh:

Sheshbazzar

I believe we all would be most pleased to hear from Professor Gardner.
There are quite a few questions that we would like to ask of him.
I do not expect that he is, and that was not at all the thrust of my statement about your 'Appeal to Authority' figures.
I never suggested or implied any such thing.
If Professor Gardner is able to provide us with otherwise unknown, unavailable, or new information on Manichaen documents that have survived and are unquestionably dated to before -276 AD-, then I am quite receptive to the examining of the details of this material evidence.
Exactly. One might well presume then, that he is in pursuit of exactly that type of material evidence we are requesting.
There is nothing immoral about wanting uncontaminated and absolutely positive evidence. That is obviously what Prof. Gardner is seeking his self.
Your needless broad-brush characterisation is again offensive and misrepresenting our objections.
No, I think if he is an honest, professional, and dedicated individual, he might think it is great that this forum has dedicated so much of its time and space to the free discussion of that rather arcane field that he holds his expertise in.

We confess we are not the experts in this field, but, and this is the big 'but'; We are skeptics, and archaeology is now turning over and disproving old ideas and 'accepted' ideas on the history of religious development on a regular basis.

The claims made in books like the 'Acts of Archelaus' at one time were practically taken as gospel until dedicated individuals like Professor Gardner took to the field and dismantled the myths one by one.

Like I said earlier, This is no life and death matter. There is no pressing need nor obligation that ought to require anyone to 'accept' an absolute this or that, before all of the evidence is in.

There should be no derogatory stigma of 'ignorance' attached simply because some wish to withhold judgement of, or commitment to a position, until all of the data has been collected and made available on which to validly base such a decision.

Stupid 'Geniuses' or no mans fools, remains to be seen, and all we are reserving is the right to wait until all the evidence is in.

Professor Gardner would not be out in those hot dusty deserts if he believed all of the evidence had been gathered.
We want him to succeed in finding what has not yet been found.

Transient

What gets me is why it is so important to Stephan that we 3 all accept his theory? What is wrong with 3 people deciding they will await further evidence - sounds like a very reasonable position to take.
I couldn't care a less which way it turns out - paracelete or no paraclete.
I guess if I was writing a book that assumed a particular theory was correct then I might have a lot of emotional energy invested in the thing but for me that is not the case.

Is that the reason that whole thing is being persued so hard and us 3 scoundrels being hunted down and hounded into submission?
I am beginning to understand what it must have been like for the poor people that were subjected to the inquisition and finally "decided" to believe in Jesus

mountainman

Smaller than the size of a matchbox, the Cologne Mani-Codex (Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis) is a minute[1] papyrus codex, dated on paleographical evidence to the fifth century CE, found near Asyut (the ancient Lycopolis), Egypt; it contains 192 pages of Greek text describing the life of Mani, the founder of the religious Manichaeism.

Here are some references:

Cologne Mani-Codex on WIKI

The COLOGNE MANI CODEX - The Encyclopædia Iranica

Images of the 192 Pages of the CMC - from www.uni-koeln.de

The Cologne Mani Codex Reconsidered - Albert Heinrichs (1979)


A 5th century CMC "Jesus" Reference

The above PDF of Albert Heinrichs (1979) makes an extremely interesting read, since the author was involved with the codex and describes its progressive restoration and its contents after much work. As is commonly now known, there are references in this 5th century codex, in which Mani associates himself with "Jesus". In one such reference Albert Heinrichs at p.349 of the Journal article states the following ....

The crucial sentence on page 66 reads:

"He said in the Gospel of his most holy hope:
'I, Mani, the apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God,
the Father of Truth, from whom I was born."

From the above set of images from www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/NRWakademie/papyrologie/Manikodex/bildermani.html
the following image is listed as this specific page number 66 .....



In theory, the above crucial English sentence above, has been translated from the Greek appearing on the above page number clickety click. Can anyone who reads Greek (I dont read Greek) spot what Albert Heinrichs calls the crucial sentence? For those of you familiar with the "Where's Wally" series of books, this is a variation.

PS: Dear stephan

Not for one moment do I doubt that these terms of devotion to "Our Man Jesus" are present either here above somewhere, or unless I have made a blunder with the page numbers, somewhere else in this amazingly miniscule absolute high technology 5th century codex. My entire line of questioning is in relation to the original works of Mani, one and a half centuries earlier. We may presume, as mainstream contemporary Manichaean studies now does, that the editor of the anthology of texts within the 5th CE CMC, had access to these original writings and thus faithfilly presented the original works of Mani.

Conversely we may simply question this presumption, and await the provision of source material closer to the 3rd century, just in case the massive changes which occurred in the legalisation of the Roman Official State Church at the Council of Nicaea had as yet unperceived impacts on the redaction of many forms of religious texts at that time. It may be that the source material used by the 5th century editor of this miniscule Cologne Mani Codex was not the original works of Mani, but rather the works of an earlier Manichaean redactor(s) of the 4th century, perhaps one or two steps removed from Mani's 3rd century originals.

Sheshbazzar

Thank you very much, mountainman! for yet again, providing the references.

As this authentic 5th century codex is what we have available to work with at the moment, Perhaps Mr Huller would like to point out to us exactly where on that page he sees the words 'Jesus Christ'?

Not that I doubt that they are there (after all it is a 5th century, and not 3rd century document) I have no reason to distrust the integrity or the translation skills of those experts who provided us with their translation.

But I am most inclined to be skeptical, and to doubt that Mr Huller has any more ability to actually read these ancient words than anyone else here.

Toto

I see no reason to doubt Henrich's translation. At the beginning of the 5th line (the second line in the paragraph) I think I can make out the word APOSTOLOS. The end of the line before it looks like IHYXPY, which could be an abbreviation of Jesus Christ. But this is not the only reference to Jesus Christ or to Christianity.

There is also a reference to the Book of Elchasai, preserved only in quotes, that Heinrichs says can be dated to the early second century by internal evidence. (p. 363). Perhaps we should use the Book of Elchasai as the test of the Constantine forgery hypothesis.

As outlined in the article, recovering this 5th century codex took some advanced restoration techniques. The idea of finding an original 3rd century manuscript in readable condition seems a far shot.

If you want to reserve judgment, go ahead. But the idea that an editor would insert heretical references to Jesus and Paul in such a manuscript has a very low probability.

avi

Christians claim that Mani proclaimed himself "The Paraclete", and Toto seeks evidence that this assertion has no basis in the writings of Mani himself.

In other words, Toto's starting point is to ACCEPT as valid, the "evidence", gathered to date, proclaiming that Mani in fact, DID so declare himself, to be "The Paraclete".

So, the starting point for Toto is to ACCEPT the validity of the existant tradition, for which we possess written support since Nicea.

In contrast, my starting point, which may, or may not be shared by other forum members, is to deny that ANY of the extant, post-Nicean literature has any validity, with regard to reporting or analysis of Mani and his teachings.

Further, my starting point is with the life of Mani (216-276 CE), as best we understand it, and that life embraces three elements:

a. exposure for twenty years, until age 25, i.e. 1/3 of his entire existence on planet earth) to life in a "heretic", docetic, gnostic, "baptist", elcesaitic sect in Babylonia, at that time, administered by, and a component of, the Sassanid Persian empire.

Mani (a Persian name), was fluent in both Syriac, lingua franca of babylonia in that era, and Middle Persian. In view of his intimate familiarity with the writings of Matthew, as followed by his sectarian environment, it is also possible that Mani knew Greek, as well. What is critical to acknowledge, for the reply to this comment of Toto to attain any meaningful stature, is that works by John, Mark, Luke, Paul, and Acts were streng verboten in that elcesaitic community, during Mani's formative years.

b. The state religion in the entire Persian kingdom, including Babylonia, was Zoroastrianism. Thus, Mani would have been exposed to its tenets, just as school children today are exposed to various elements of Christianity, while living in North America. It is inescapable. It is pervasive. It is insidious. It is impossible, living on this continent to find even a remote area, not contaminated by various "Christmas" paraphernalia. Undoubtedly, Mani would have been exposed in the same fashion, to Zoroastrian traditions, from earliest childhood. Nota bene, that orthodox scholarship disputes, vigorously, my contention that Mani was influenced in any way, by Zoroastrianism:
This author is a Post-Nicean Christian leader, doubtless influenced by a need to demonize Manichaeism. I am not sure whether or not Mr.Konai was fluent in middle Persian, or whether or not he had access to Persian documents.

c. Mani's zeal to learn more, led him to explore Buddhism, not simply by reading about it, or discussing it with passersby on the Silk Route. He traveled to the furthest edges of the Persian empire, and beyond, all the way to India, where he was regarded, from the perspective of the Buddhists living there, as one of the original eight prophets.

Unlike the situation with respect to the second factor, above, the influence of Zoroastrianism, denied by many scholars, there appears to be no such opposition to acknowledging the influence of Buddhism on Mani:
Toto seeks evidence that Mani did NOT proclaim himself "the Paraclete". Since we lack any first hand accounts, all we can rely upon are second hand rumors and gossip. A good starting point then, to address Toto's question, would be the statements of Augustine (354-430):
I wonder if Augustine commented on the supposed claim that Mani represented "The Paraclete". Here's one scholar's opinion:
So, at least in this author's opinon, "The Paraclete" is not described as relevant to the "heart" of Manicheaism. That does not mean that I am contented with citing Augustine to support my contention that the three most influential factors governing Mani's development were:

a. elcesaitism = horror of Paul and John and Luke and Acts;

b. Zoroastrianism = pure Persian, need to access the library at Isfahan;

c. Buddhism = the main library, with all the relevant docs were burned to the ground by the Muslims in the 12th century.

main point: Manichaeism had little or nothing to do with any flavour of orthodox Christianity, as spelled out by Justin Martyr, "Irenaeus", and Tertullian, and a great deal to do with Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. Consequently, it is silly to insist on a Judeo-Christian interpretation of his life's work ("the paraclete"). He probably was influenced by Matthew. He probably was not influenced by any other Christian author. There is no evidence that he ever considered Judaism ("The Paraclete") to trump either Zoroastrianism or Buddhism, in developing his own religion.

avi