mountainman

(1) Was Mani "Christianized"?
(2) Was Mani crucified?
(3) Had Eusebius read the "Gospel of Mani"?

The historicity of the Persian sage, author and traveller Mani is reasonably secure. Mani (C. 216 – 276 CE) was an Iranian mystic and the founder of the gnostic religion Manichaeism. The religion must have been very similar to Buddism, if not the same kind of message. Shapur II's brother Peroz issued coins while Mani had influence in Persia in the mid 3rd century, with the image of Buddha on the reverse. Recently, more and more original Manichaean manuscripts have been serendiptously retrieved in archaeologicial finds.

(1) Was Mani "Christianized"? Firstly, Eusebius and his continuators assert Mani was a "Christian heretic". Does anyone actually believe this assertion any more? Surely this is seen as a fraudulent misrepresentation of the historical truth about Mani?

(2) Secondly, was Mani crucified? The WIKI page states ...
Was this really necessary? It is obvious from the Christian "Ecclesiatical Historian" 5th century continuators of Eusebius assert that Mani was not crucified but rather skinned alive. However the oldest manuscripts prepared out of the influence of the "christian orthodoxy" appear to assert otherwise --- that the 3rd century Mani was crucified following Shapur II death, and a change in political power in Persia. It seems more reasonable to suspect that Mani (the Buddhist-like historical figure) was crucified, and that the "Christian 5th century Reporters" purposefully got it wrong.

(3) Had Eusebius read the "Gospel of Mani"? Thirdly, this suggests that "The Story of the Crucified Mani" was available in the libraries of Rome c.312 CE when Constantine took over their imperial sponsorship. The writings of the Manichaeans, such as "The Gospel of Mani", (Mani described himself as "The Apostle") logically were thus available ---- in theory ---- alongside the "Gospels of Jesus" [ie: the New Testament]. It appears that there were Manichaean monasteries in Rome at that time, and at other places in the empire despite the late 3rd century persecution of the Eastern Manichaens by Diocletian in Egypt. Is it likely that Eusebius had access to and had read the literature of Mani, before he set out to make this historical figure part of the story of the accounts of the "Early Christians and the Early Christian Heretics"?

mountainman

This is correct, but the Roman and Persian empires had a common (shifting) boundary - they were quite close. Mani appears to have been sponsored by Shapur I, and was subsequently executed after the death of that Persian King.


There are a number of "chronological layers" of the Manichaean evidence, and one of those layers is consistent of a process of assertions by orthodox christian heresiologists and other authors, specifically Eusebius and Augustine. The question is what did the original writings of Mani look like without the tampering of the orthodox christians.


The writings of the Manichaeans were ceremoniously burnt against the sturdy doors of christian basilicas throughout the 4th and 5th centuries. Why? Because the story of the Persian sage and Holy Man Mani, who may have been crucified c.274 CE in the Persian capital, along with some disciples and apostles, was too similar to the New Testament "story line"?



I have posed three questions related to Mani:

(1) Was Mani "Christianized"?
(2) Was Mani crucified?
(3) Had Eusebius read the "Gospel of Mani"?


Yes, these questions are critically skeptical of the historical integrity of the church historian Eusebius who BLANDLY asserts Mani was a "Christian" and that there were a gaggle of "bishops" in the Persian capital in the mid to late 3rd century. What answers can be revealed to these 3 questions?


I would be especially appreciative of links to any "non-christianised" versions of The Gospel of Mani


DISCLAIMER

I'd like to add that I could be quite mistaken about this skepticism, and that if there appears to be rock solid evidence that the originally authored manuscripts of the author Mani, and of his third century followers disclose the belief in the "Christian story as it appears in the New testament", then I will have to be persuaded by this evidence, that some type of "Christianity" - even if it was some Manichaean form of "NT Christianity" - existed before the beginning of the fourth century.

stephan huller

I can't believe you are even attempting to explain Mani with your fourth century conspiracy theory. You'd have to make Constantine into a supernatural being to make him have control over events in the Persian Empire. You can't employ your normal methodology because the center of Manichaeanism was always outside of the Roman Empire. You can't simply argue that there 'loose ends' in the textual evidence. So what? Mani never set foot in the Roman Empire. Never. He never met Constantine or Eusebius and the textual evidence that connects Mani with Christianity is found in places way beyond the Roman Empire. It's time to use your obvious passion and imagination to better use. Argue instead that Constantine was the culmination of a century of Roman involvement in the development of Christianity. It is the only way to salvage your theory.

I never meant to ridicule you as a person. I just find that in many ways you seem to be the reverse of the close-mindedness of the pious religious typology. Yes this is your theory. There is nothing wrong with parts of it. But you haven't provided any evidence to dismiss the evidence of Mani and Manichaeanism already existing long before the fourth century conspiracy.

The texts can't simply have been Christianized in the fourth century. This because we are the religion developed outside of the Empire. The story of Mani's imprisonment and death don't show any signs of Roman manipulation and it would be unnatural to posit this. Indeed the only motivation for doing so would be to rescue an unworkable theory.

The fact that a number of Manichaean psalms resemble surviving Mandaean hymns is another difficulty for you to overcome. This wasn't something 'invented in a Roman factory.' Moreover the synthesis of Manichaeanism included Buddhism and other elements from eastern religion. The canon of the Manichaeans included the Acts of John and apocryphal texts not 'encouraged' or even mentioned by Eusebius. Do I have to go on? Is there really anything in any of your 'questioning' of Manichaean sources that would cause any reasonable person to think that your fourth century conspiracy is the most scientific explanation for the origin of Christianized elements in the earliest strata of the Persian tradition.

Your theory just doesn't work. It's time to take out the tools and start making modifications. We all make mistakes. The one unforgiveable mistake is demonstrating that you refuse to acknowledge irrefutable evidence.

spin

"Did you hear something...?

:thinking:

...No? Neither did I."

Minimalist

The boundary is irrelevant. Commerce flowed in both directions over sea and land routes and no one in either empire had any desire to turn off the tap that gushed money. Ideas have always traveled along trade routes.

mountainman

The OP has posed three questions yet to be addressed.

There is evidence of Manichaean communities in Egypt 244 and 251 CE, and in Rome by 280 CE via the apostle Psattiq. The faith was flourishing in the Fayum area of Egypt in 290 CE, and was subject to decrees by Diocletian 296 CE against the Manichaeans, resulting in numerous martyrs in Egypt and North Africa.

"We order that their organizers and leaders
be subject to the final penalties and condemned
to the fire with their abominable scriptures."

It seems to be an established fact that Manichaean monasteries existed in Rome in 312 CE, when Constantine took that city.

Furthermore, as it is also an established fact that the first persecutions against Mani himself and his disciples occurred in Persia c.276 CE, where Mani was executed (perhaps crucified) as ordered by Bahram I, then it is more than reasonable to suspect that even the original writings of Mani, and of his followers, may have left the Persian empire for the relative safety of monasteries in Egypt and perhaps even Rome.



It is more than reasonable to assume that copies of the writings of Mani and his followers were preserved within the ROman Empire, at least after the second wave of anti-Manichaean persecutions inside Persia by Bahram II from 291 CE, including the murder of the apostle Sisin and the slaughtering of many Manichaeans.

Because of these political persecutions, from this point on Manichaeanism left Persia and attempted to survive inside the Roman Empire.



Above you will find evidence which seems to indicate that the writings of the Manichaeans were being preserved in monasteries within the ROman empire at Egypt and even in Rome by the late 3rd century. If there was a Manichaean monastery in Rome in 312 CE then it seems likely that at least some of the original writings (of Mani, and of his followers, etc) may have been read by Eusebius.


There is a great deal of evidence for precisely this. Momigliano mentions this alot in various essays (do you wish me to cite this?) and there is plain evidence for the process exhibited in the Nag Hammadi Codices.

The Sophia of Jesus Christ

As if they were sequentially presenting a geometrical treatise of Euclid, the editors of the NHC present three different versions of the one source text. In the first instance a book called “Eugnostos the Blessed” (Eugnostos means "Right Thinking") is written by scribal hand at NHC 3.3. It is then repeated a second time at NHC 5.1, with one small addition ... "The first aeon, then, is that of Immortal Man. The second aeon is that of Son of Man, who is called 'First Begetter' (and in Codex 5.1; "who is called 'Savior'" is added). Thus, the second version is exactly the same as the first version but with the addition of one phrase – namely "who is called 'Savior'. Finally at NHC 3.4, the tract entitled "The Sophia of Jesus Christ" is a "Christianized" and redacted form of the original Eugnostos the Blessed. In other words, the editor of the NHC is setting out the process by which non-Christian wisdom was "Christianized".

Evidence suggests Manichaean monasteries inside the empire from mid 3rd century. Following the political execution of Mani and the persecution of his apostles and followers in the late 3rd century in Persia, any subsequent development of the Manichaean religion, and at least the preservation of the writings of Mani and his followers, would have been carried out within the Roman Empire, where it was for a brief time, safer than in Persia.


Of course. Mani was a historical person. But was he "christianized", was he crucified and had Eusebius read Mani's "Gospel"?


Yes, I am aware of the eastern influence.
It even exists in coins from Persia.


In the first place Eusebius asserts Mani to be a christian. A heretic of course, but definitely a christian. The literature of the Manichaeans and the literature which comprises the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc" are both characterized by their treatment by the christian heresiologists. Both sets are the product of heretics.


The christians in general and Eusebius in particular appeared to have no qualms about the perversion of the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus in order to further their own ends.


The Manichaean evidence in our possession at the moment appears to be late, and sourced from the end of the 4th century at the earliest. Some of it is clearly the product of Christian anti-Manichaean polemics, such as 4th century Acta Archelai. This and other material are hagiographical accounts, which are not currently regarded as very reliable. Even the recently discovered Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis has been dated to the late 4th century, a number of generations after the Council of Nicaea, and the empire wide implementation of the Christian state religion.

Are there any Manichaean sources dated before the 4th century?

stephan huller

Alright Pete

I'm sorry but in the real world you can't just keep arguing against the obvious interpretation of the evidence. You say that there isn't any literary evidence from the first, second, third and fourth centuries because these were made up by a fourth century conspiracy. All the experts in the field of Patristic studies don't have your superior sense of 'smelling a fraud.'

Then when you hear that there are reports of physical places where Christians are witnessed as having shrines or churches (Dura Europos, the Martyrium of St. Mark) before Constantine experts in another field - now archaeology - need to take lessons from you on how to properly interpret the evidence.

Then when we have clear and incontrovertable evidence that there was a completely separate branch of Christianity that developed beyond the reaches of the Roman authorities in Manichaeanism Pete the mountainman is going to take on the experts of yet another field of study - this time that related to Manichaeanism.

Is there any point at which you as someone who admits to having no skills in ancient languages, who has never formerly studied any of the fields that you profess to have an expertise, who has visited any of the archaeological sites, nor had any in depth familiarity with the original literary material (the other day I got you to admit that one of your lines of reasoning was just copied off some blog post of a guy equally unqualified in Patristic literature) will simply admit that he is just making it up as he goes along? Is there any point that you will just confess to not knowing what you are talking about? That your explanations follow your prejudices.

Not only is there a fourth century conspiracy in Europe to invent Christianity but now Mani isn't claiming to be the Paraclete of Jesus? What vision then do you O holy and reverent Pete the mountainman posit that Manichaeanism was promoting in the Roman Empire if not a heretical form of Christianity? What visions of the truth have you received from your mountain top?

I doubt very much that you will be able to provide any evidence for this reinterpretation of Manichaeanism as I doubt you have ever read any of the original material let alone the countless articles and books written on the subject. Yet please enlighten us with your God given gifts why it is that we should abandon what the Manichaean texts themselves tell us about Mani? Or better yet, please provide us with an account of which Manichaean documents Pete the mountainman accepts as genuine and on what grounds you have rejected the spurious ones (besides of course that they get in the way of your ----- theory).

mountainman

The question "Did the original Syriac writings of Mani mention Jesus" is not trivially answered. We certainly know what polemic the christians decided to preserve about Mani and the Manichaean heretics after they were burnt out of the empire by fire and sword, death and destruction.



Richard Foltz postulates Buddhist influences in Manichaeism, after all, following the footsteps of Apollonius of Tyana (whose Greek biography by Philostratus Mani may have even read), he reportedly trecked to India to converse with the sages.


I may not be qualified in Greek or Latin or Coptic or Syriac, but I have read widely upon this subject, because at first I thought the references to Jesus in the writings of Mani suggested Jesus was an historical figure. But then I thought that is precisely the same thing people used to say about the references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus.

The preservation of literature via the codex particularly was in the hands of the christian victors of the 4th asnd 5th centuries. The Manichaeans were just another bunch of heretics whose original writings were to be fed to the fires without question. I am wondering what those original writings disclosed, or did not disclose.


Hence these three questions of the OP.

(1) Was Mani "Christianized"?
(2) Was Mani crucified?
(3) Had Eusebius read the "Gospel of Mani"?

Would you please please try and address the OP here.
These are 3 simple questions. A Yes or a no will be acceptable
but a more detailed response would be more than welcome.

Transient

And yet more abuse from Stephan Hollow.
Were you born rude or did you acquire it?
Stop Attacking the man and play the ball!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you daft?
I have been saying this for a while now.
Can a leopard change it's spots? I guess not.

stephan huller

There is absolutely no substance to these arguments. To even consider that Mani did not consider himself to be the Paraclete of Jesus is akin to suggesting that George Washington might not have been American or that we should pause and consider whether or not England has a monarchy. Can you imagine that? Having a debate as to whether England has or ever had a monarchy? Or whether there is such a thing as gravity?

When someone argues that a wood can't float or that water is really a flammable substance or that dogs really have the capability to speak Japanese or that levitation is a documented phenomena or that the German language is properly classified as a dialect of Chinese or that pizza was really first developed by prehistoric man or that one can get high smoking banana peels or that children really are actually delivered by storks or that the Soviet Union was a historical myth or that human beings only started wearing clothing fifty years ago or that the moon is really a manmade object or that a tribe in the Amazon had their own version of the Santa Claus story or that douching with Coca Cola will prevent pregnancy it isn't the responsibility of outsiders to consider the propagation of nonsense.

Mani is only known to us through documents which present him as a late Christian heretic. If you or magicman have any evidence to suggest that this might not be true I would be happy to consider it. However all magicman has done is raise the possibility as a distraction from the fact that the existing evidence would torpedo his ----- theory.

As it stands Mani disproves the idea that Christianity was wholly invented in the fourth century.