mountainman

Within two generations of c.276/277 CE (i.e. Mani's execution) we have the Council of Nicaea
and the subsequent imperial law code "Religious privileges are reserved for Christians".


At Nicaea, the Roman Emperor actively sought to "Canonize" the "Books of the Christians"
and shortly thereafter mass produced fifty bibles, of which our earliest greek NT codices
may be one or two, or copies thereof.


Therefore it should prove interesting examining the evidence in our possession.



Constantine's barbarian army secured the area between 324 and 325 CE
at which time Constantine proclaimed Christianity as his prefered cult.


The scholars I cited above explain this 'almost three hundred years' as an 'anachronistic dating' that appears within the 'fictitious events described by the AA'. You'd have to explain your disagreement with this recent academic assessment, and the appearance of the same 'anachronistic dating' in Ephrem Syrus, Against Mani. I have my own idea why two separate texts about Mani incorporate this anachronist dating asserting the 'paraclete of Mani' appears 300 years after "Jesus".




The AA may thus be reasonably classified as a christian polemical fabrication of fiction directed against the credibility of the figure of Mani. However I will be the first to agree that the manucripts which have been found preserved away from the christian orthodoxy logically CANNOT be explained as fabrications made by orthodox preservers.

Hence (I think) Totos question ...


I would answer this question by saying that I do not think that the orthodox could possibly have been responsible for the insertion and the preservation of the name of Jesus in the Manichaean texts which have been found in remote (ie: not in Alexandria) locations in Egypt. Most emphatically, the orthodox would not preserve but BURN and DESTROY any "Gnostic Gospel" and the "Gospel of Mani" is viewed as "Gnostic".

My best estimated answer to this question at the moment (I am researching) is that the post-Nicaean Manichaeans decided that it was in their best interests of survival (and that of their "Holy Scriptures of Mani") to include mention of "Jesus" in their own "Holy Writings" because of the Draconian law of Constantine which I have cited above from the Codex Theodosianus -----------> "Religious privileges are reserved for "Christians".

I think it is reasonable to think that the Manichaeans were trying to preserve their literary heritage, which was less than a century old, by passing themselves off as a variant of the official imperial cult, and by claiming that Mani was a "follower of Jesus" in a natural CHRONOLOGICAL sense.

Setting aside the ficititious "AA" (btw that's not referring to you aa5874), the earliest manuscripts that I have so far been able to review were produced according to the date estimate c.400 CE. Eusebius and his henchmen had been pushing up daisies for over 60 years - two generations have passed since 337 CE. But the Manichaeans had been by them the victims of orthodox imperially sponsored christian persecution and intolerance for over three generations, and before that time, to the imperial Roman persecutions of Diocletian c.296 CE, and to the imperial Persian persecutions of the Persian state. The Manichaeans were simply trying to preserve the "Canon and Gospel of Mani", in addition to other literature (eg: historical accounts, etc) authored by the generation of followers and apostles of Mani himself.

The big question in my mind is whether we can safely postulate that the original writings, authored by Mani (in a "special script") during the 30 golden years between 242 and 262 CE ( "sponsored in Shapur's court") actually mention "Jesus". What does the evidence say?

To the question "Was Mani "Christianised?", I think that modern scholarship (cited above) indicates that this was the case - a ficitious life of Mani was fabricated which denigrated the Persian "Buddhist-like" sage and author - and his books, and those of his followers. But I also think that the Manichaeans themselves, after the all important Council of Nicaea, and the appearance of new official imperial decrees limiting religious practices to those which worshipped Jesus of the New Testament, may have "added a few references" for the sake of conforming to the law. I would like to see evidence of this however, stratified by its chronology. Evidence in support of this conjecture must include the fact that the Manichaeans themselves were also preserving one or more of the heretical "Gnostic Gospels". The Manichaeans were not alone as "heretics" in the 4th century after Nicaea. The Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mani had to go underground - together.


Was Mani crucified c.276/277 CE?

Noone has answered this question yet. Apparently there are claims that his apostles thought so, but later claims by christian historians disagreed, and claimed he was skinned alive.


Had Eusebius read "The Gospel of Mani"?

Noone has answered this question yet. Didn't Eusebius, possibly a man of Jewish descent [Momigliano], also read Syriac? We must not forget that Eusebius researched and wrote his "Church History" between 312 and 324 CE, and that there appears to have been Manichaean monasteries in Rome c.312 CE. On the basis of this evidence I think that it would be quite reasonable to suspect that Eusebius may have appraised himself of some degree of synopsis, if not perhaps some detailed study, of copies of the original writings and "The Gospel" of Mani.

These writings may have included accounts by some of Mani's twelve apostles, including perhaps that relating to his historical life which is now being vindicated by the "more original Manichaean" manuscript evidence. This historical life of Mani included widespread teachings and conversions of many people to his new religion, his "miraculous" works of healing via knowledge of ascetic practices, the spread of his "new religion" all across the Persian and Indian and Roman empires, and finally his ignominious crucifixion in the Persian state capital city.

Chronologically, all this was recent popular, political and public "common news" amongst most of the Greek speaking gentiles, and not just the literate ones who nevertheless may have preferred to read Philostratus's "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana". When Eusebius started researching that "lonely and untrodden path" of Christian history he may have visited the Manichaean monastery in Rome. Alternatively, the new "Pontifex Maximus" Constantine could have arranged for an inter-library "loan".

Toto

What modern scholarship specifically?

mountainman

See post # 43 with notes and link.


Frontiers of faith: the Christian encounter with Manichaeism in the Acts of Archelaus (or via: amazon.co.uk),
by Jason BeDuhn, Paul Allan Mirecki. (2007 CE)


The Three Hundred Years between Mani and Jesus anachronism

From the above publication:

This inadvertent anachronism can be explained in the Christian accounts which are horrified and entirely skeptical that Mani has suddenly claimed to be the paraklete of Jesus after 300 years, because no such claim was recorded during the 3rd century with the original writings of Mani. i.e. that the claim has only just appeared after Nicaea when the issue of Jesus became very topical.

Toto

Did you actually read this book or just search it for a few ideas that you could take out of context?

A few quotes from the google books version show that there is nothing here to support the idea that Mani would not have claimed to be the Paraclete

mountainman

How do you explain the two "over three hundred years" anachronisms directly related to and opposing this claim in the two christian hagiographies?

stephan huller

mountainman

I have to admit I don't understand why you get hung up on these minor details. What are you attempting to prove by the TWO contradictory references to the amount of time separating Mani and Jesus (i.e. 'nearly three hundred years' in one place in the Acts of Archelaus and 'three hundred years' in another)? You accept that Mani is a historical individual. You accept that his tradition left behind manuscripts many of which are dated to the fourth century. As such that would leave out your normal argument which is that a group of Roman conspirators invented Mani. So what is your point? Does every scribal error or bit of misinformation mean that there is something more than an accidental misprint at work here? And why so?

Mani is the death knell of your conspiracy theory. You simply never considered that there was a Christian world going on outside of the Roman Empire already in the third century. This culture was based on a very different paradigm that - IMO - the Roman authorities had good reason to fear. The expectation that Jesus came to herald a menachem (mani) who would defeat the Roman occupiers of the Holy Land was eventually fulfilled (at least according to contemporary reports) by Mohammed. In effect the Romans were tampering with Christianity to prevent a Mohammed from appearing in the earlier period. That is why the 'Jesus Christ' paradigm was ultimately favored by Emperors since the time of Commodus (at least that's my take on matters).

You can continue to argue that Constantine was the first Emperor to selectively favor a specific form of Christian belief but you have to artificially expunge so much evidence that no one will take you seriously. There is evidence for a large number of Christians in the Imperial courts of various Emperors back to the time of Commodus. Constantine only represents the last chapter in a one hundred and fifty year story.

The art of piecing together the ancient past is really more akin to handicapping the outcome of a sporting event (i.e. 'sport betting') than anything else. We are deciding on probable outcomes here based on a set of agreed upon facts.

The fact that someone miscalculated the dates for EITHER Jesus or Mani (remember Irenaeus miscalculated under which Emperor the crucifixion occurred) really has very little bearing on matters here. The Acts of Archelaus are corrupt. No one doubts that. But this is only one document among a plethora of recorded bits of information which make it absolutely certain that Mani in the late third century.

I have no idea why 'little molehills' always turn into giant mountains of proof for your fourth century conspiracy theory. In this case it simply doesn't work. The 'three hundred years' reference is utterly irrelevant to the bigger picture. You couldn't convince a single expert to change the dating for Mani based on any of this. The only people who would listen to you are those who already buy into your conspiracy theory.

Littlejohn

"...This can't be a coincidence..."

I perfectly agree with you!

I think you've done well to 'stigmatize' everything. There has been, in fact, a 'guilty' negligence (or 'laziness') on the part of the world of professional erudition to investigate this important aspect, especially in light of the fact that Muslims equate Muhammad with Jesus, deeming both as great prophets.

If they had, if they had thoroughly investigated the matter, today many things would be clearer and, above all, the researchers would have could to count on a mass of data far beyond those available today, isolated by the christian and extra-christian contexts


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

mountainman

The two "three hundred years" anachronisms

Here is the first anachronism.

ACTA ARCHELAI - The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes
19th century translation by S. D. F. Salmond.

The key anachronism noted by certain academics in this text is:

a) the phrase .... "well-nigh three hundred years after", and

b) the phrase ... "after an interval of three hundred years and more.

In a separately authored document from the 4th century, an extremely similar instance of the same anachronism has been noticed. In this instance I have not yet been able to find an english translation of Ephrem Syrus, Against Mani: where this same strange anachronism is repeated. This has been extracted from the abovementioned book (See post #43)

"MANI, WHO THEY SAY IS THE PARACLETE THAT COMES AFTER 300 YEARS."



These anachronisms can be explained by assuming that the two separate Christian authors who were depreciating Mani and Manichaeanism are both absolutely unaware that Mani made the claim that he was the "paraklete of Jesus" anywhere in the 3rd century. That is, the anachronism is able to be explained on the basis that the two christian authors had only just become aware of the claims of the Manichaeans that Mani was the paraklete of Jesus, that is, that these claims were made new and novel in the 4th century.

How would you explain these two anachronisms? Dismissal?


Yes. of course.

Yes.

I have never made that claim.

The question - Did the original 3rd century writings of Mani mention "Jesus"?


We are to explain the evidence in the most efficient manner possible. The integrity exceptions in the evidence, such as ANACHRONISMS should be treated with some degree of circumspect.

The citation of securely dated preNicaean manichaean references to "Jesus" will certainly represent the "Silver Bullet" for the idea that Jesus was fabricated in the 4th century. But where are these citations?


I am not arguing that Mani did not exist - his "historicity" is far more secure than many figures of antiquity. I am arguing that the evidence in our possession cannot (yet) establish whether the original 3rd CE writings of Mani ever mentioned "Jesus".

You dont get it. I am not arguing about the dating of the 3rd century Mani at all. I accept he was some sort of "Buddhist" revivalist, and I question whether he originally made mention of Jesus.

The two separate and independent anachronistic references indicate that the two separate christian authors were not at all aware that Mani made the claim to be the paraklete of Jesus in the 3rd century. According to what they write, they are presenting that the claim of Manichaeans regarding Mani being the paraklte of Jesus only appeared late - in the 4th century - after Nicaea.

The evidence indicates to me that these extremely orthodox christian authors are literally horrified and most skeptical of this very late claim made by the Manichaeans AFTER MORE THAN THREE CENTURIES since Jesus c.33 CE. That is, that the claim was made by the Manichaeans no earlier than after the all-important "Council" of Nicaea.

stephan huller

This is why it is so frustrating to engage you in any meaningful conversation. You haven't come up with an argument against dating Mani to the period that every document and every authority since the time of Mani places him. Your point AS ALWAYS is 'besides all the textual evidence, archaeological evidence and common consensus of scholarship how do you prove that Mani believed in Jesus?'

This is so -----. Everything proves that Mani is exactly who we think he is. It's up to you to come up with an argument which disproves the universally acknowledged historical reality. You haven't done that. Therefore Mani is who and what everyone has always identified him as.

You just don't want to admit your theory doesn't explain ALL of the evidence. Not everything Christian can attributed to a fourth century Roman conspiracy.

Transient

Actually it is you that is frustrating.
Have a look at your own reply to Mountainman's last post - disgraceful in the extreme.
Read his post again and this time reply properly or lose face.