Transient

So we are still waiting for evidence (evidence not peoples opinions) that there was some connection between christianity and this dude called Mani.
What we need are documents that were undeniably written pre Nicea.
That can't be too hard can it.
I don't think it can be spelt any clearer.
If anybody has links to actual documents then provide them now otherwise I conclude that it is not for certain that there was a connection between Mani and christianity - only in the minds of some scholars over the years based on what others have written.
If this issue gets side-stepped I will just keep coming back to what I have just written till it gets dealt with properly - even if it is just an admission that there are no such documents.

mountainman

Thanks Toto. No I haven't yet, but I have been really trying to do so. With the exception of this reference the earliest manuscripts appear to be the two antimanichaean orthodox christian polemics of the early to mid 4th century.

I am thinking that there may indeed be some independent and earlier Manichaean papyri fragments, but I have not yet been able to find any items to present to this discussion. However I am looking at this seriously.



I thinbk that the scholarly consensus dates these as having left the Roman Empire during the 5th century and as having been associated with the Nestorian controversy - largely featuring the ex-Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius, and the depraved Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, who also refuted Julian's literature works.

I think the manuscripts from the Silk road are all dated after this 5th century egress from the Roman Empire, because of the influence of "Nestorianism". Thus they cannot tell us what the state of the manuscripts were in the 4th and the critically original 3rd century.

When people today say "Josephus does not mention Jesus" they do so based on the assessment that the original writings of Josephus were interpolated with the "TF" at some later date - most likely the 4th century.

When I ask the question ... "Did the original 3rd century writings of Mani mention "Jesus"? I am infering of course that we will not find any preNicaean manuscripts from Mani which mention Jesus and that fragments of his works may have been cited by the orthodox followers of Eusebius, but with a few specific interpolations of the words "Jesus" and/or "Saviour". I must also postulate that the post-Nicaean Manichaeans saw fit to make a desperate last minute attempt to "legitimitize" their holy canon of writings in the face of massive imperial efforts of ADAPT to the books of the New TEstament and Jesus.

I dont see that this position is radically skeptical of scholarship, only that it contains a new idea, namely that like Josephus, the literature of Mani was also perverted/"christianized"/interpolated by the ambitions of the centralised imperial Roman state religion.

At the end end of the day I dont see what all the rhetoric is about. We either have evidence from the 3rd century or we do not at present. If we have some evidence, some fragments - what do these fragments say? In a nutshell, that's what the OP here is about. The evidence itself.


Commendation

BTW, the entire existence of this forum and its smooth operation over many years has relied implicitly upon your moderation and proactive contributions to many levels of discussion. I want to say thanks for the tolerance that you yourself have had to maintain, in the face of what to most people appear to be strange, outlandish and counter-intuitive new ideas from me.

stephan huller

No we're not. It is well established that virtually all the Manichaean documents reference Mani as the Paraclete of Jesus. This is not in dispute. Any meaningful examination of what those documents mean is hampered by the hyper-criticism of people like you at the forum who will only accept documents if they are the original from the hand of whoever first wrote the text.

You realize of course that even when we have a copy of Shakespeare in our hands almost everybody is using published works of the author manufactured centuries after his death. I assume that original MSS of Shakespeare exist somewhere but I am not concerned that these might be forgeries. I am well aware that there is a debate as to whether one author wrote all the texts ascribed to Shakespeare. Yet none of this gets in my way of enjoying the material.

Our earliest manuscripts of Plato are nowhere near the date of the original author. I don't think anyone doubts the existence of Plato or that he wrote some of the works ascribed to him.

I personally find the hyper-critical approach to Christianity rather annoying. We can't have an interesting discussion about Mani because someone claims that it might all be made up or that Mani might only have been made into a Christian after his death.

I have yet to see an argument which supports this claim. Just a lot of hot air and wishful thinking (and dread insofar as Mani disproves that all Christianity was invented at Nicaea).

I am happy with this overview of Manichaean literature:

Mani himself composed a large number of works and epistles, which were in great part still known to the Mahommedan historians, but are now mostly lost. The later heads of the Manichaean churches also wrote religious treatises, so that the ancient Manichaean literature must have been very extensive. According to the Fihrist, Mani made use of the Persian and Syriac languages; but, like the Oriental Marcionites before him, he invented an alphabet of his own, which the Fihrist has handed down to us. In this alphabet the sacred books of the Manichaeans were written, even at a later period. The Fihrist reckons seven principal works of Mani, six being in the Syriac and one in the Persian language; regarding some of these we also have information in Epiphanius, Augustine, Titus of Bostra, and Photius, as well as in the formula of abjuration (Cotelerius, PP. Apost. Opp. i. 543) and in the Acta Archelai. They are (1) The Book of Secrets (see Acta Archel.), containing discussions bearing on the Christian sects spread throughout the East, especially the Marcionites and Bardesanites, and dealing also with their conception of the Old and New Testaments; (2) The Book of the Giants (Demons ?); (3) The Book of Precepts for Hearers (probably identical with the Epistola Fundanienti of Augustine and with the Book of Chapters of Epiphanius and the Acta Archelai; this was the most widely spread and most popular Manichaean work, having been translated into Greek and Latin; it contained a short summary of all the doctrines of fundamental authority); (4) The Book Shahpurakan (Fliigel was unable to explain this name; according to Kessler it signifies "epistle to King Shapur"; the treatise was of an eschatological character); (5) The Book of Quickening (Kessler identifies this work with the "Thesaurus [vitae]" of the Acta Archelai, Epiphanius, Photius and Augustine, and if this be correct it also must have been in use among the Latin Manichaeans); (6) The Book (of unknown contents); (7) a book in the Persian language, the title of which is not given in our present text of the Fihrist, but which is in all probability identical with the "holy gospel" of the Manichaeans (mentioned in the Acta Archel. and many other authorities). It was this work which the Manichaeans set up in opposition to the Gospels. Besides these principal works, Mani also wrote a large number of smaller treatises and epistles. The practice of writing epistles was continued by his successors. These Manichaean dissertations also became known in the Graeco-Roman Empire, and existed in collections.' There also existed a Manichaean book of memorabilia, and of prayers, in Greek, as well as many others,' all of which were destroyed by the Christian bishops acting in conjunction with the authorities. A Manichaean epistle, addressed to one Marcellus, has, however, been preserved for us in the Acta Archelai. 3 Manichaean System. - Though the leading features of Manichaean doctrine can be exhibited clearly even at the present day, and though it is undoubted that Mani himself drew up a complete system, many details are nevertheless uncertain, since they are differently described in different sources, and it often remains doubtful which of the accounts that have been transmitted to us represents the original teaching of the founder

I don't understand how I or anyone else has to prove that this collection of literature doesn't establish that Mani was always a Christian. I have no idea the character of the people I am debating with here but my feeling is that many of you are like the fox in the sour grapes fable. None of you have any familiarity with Manichaeanism. Until you read up on the tradition please refrain from acting as if Mani's Christian identity is 'in doubt' by anyone other than the desparately ignorant - like yourselves.

Toto

Yes, it's hard. There are very few surviving original documents from that era. There are copies of copies, because that's how documents were transmitted in those days - by scribes making copies of documents that would otherwise rot or be lost.

This means that there is always the possibility that a copy was not made correctly, or that the scribe inserted other material.

This does not mean that it is reasonable to take any phrase that you find inconvenient and declare it to be fraudulent. There needs to be some logic behind deciding that a document is untrustworthy.

For instance, in the case of the Testamonium, we know that Eusebius had the motive and the opportunity to insert a reference to Jesus, and we find that the section reflects Eusebian language and thought processes.

There is no such demonstration in the case of Mani's reference to Jesus, or to the references to the Paraclete. Pete's attempt to construct a possible motive is contrived. It is theoretically possible that the terms were late insertions, but highly unlikely (and if anyone quotes the first part of that sentence out of context I will edit the post. :angry: )

Is the above a sufficient answer to your question? Can we move on to a real issue?

Transient

Well I have read some of stuff that has been written about Mani. It is obvious that a lot has been woven into the stories and ideas about Mani over the years after his death.
The question that is difficult to answer until older documents are dug up, is how much was added and changed and did it involve the christian ideas? I am well aware that it is nice for scholars to accept what has been written many years ago by other scholars.
Looks like this is not the silver bullet to put to rest Mountainman's theory at all even tho it well may be that Mani was influenced by the character "Jesus", it is far from proven.
It may be that such influences happened well after his life ended and were written in so as to sound like they did not conflict with his original ideas. Until it can be proven otherwise then that remains a possiblity and given the RCC's tendency to do the same thing, it is quite a possibility.

stephan huller

The situation with the Manichaean literature is very different than the usual 'mythicist' arguments related to Jesus. Jesus didn't leave behind any written documents. Mani on the other hand is credited with writing a great deal of texts - almost all of them reference heretical Christian interpretations of the gospel and related material.

There are Manichaean sources which date to the third century. We are indebted to Pete from providing us with that information. Given that Manichaeanism was developed in relation to a pre-existent Marcionite tradition, what we should be doing is discussing whether the idea that Jesus only came to announce SOMEONE ELSE as the messiah makes more sense than the inherited European paradigm.

I think it certainly does given the fact that Jesus does not look, feel or sound like the kind of anointed one expected by the Jews.

The question about whether Mani was a pre-Nicaean development is obvious. You have a situation in Osrhoene where the Marcionites were the orthodoxy since at least 138 CE. The Catholics were called Palutians supposedly because of their first bishop but the word means 'refugee' in Aramaic. The Marcionites had already appropriated the name 'Christian' and only they could use it in many places into the fifth century if I recall Bauer's argument correctly.

This pre-Nicaean - indeed pre-Catholic for that matter - tradition has Jesus coming to announce the apostle 'Paul' (our name not necessarily shared by the Marcionites) as the messiah (menachem). Isn't that more interesting than talking about Pete's theory?

mountainman

Unfortunately the source does not specify the evidential source for this "third century Manichaean manuscripts, unless they are simply refering to the fact that the two Christian accounts of the early 4th century are talking about events of the third, in which case we areback at square one. The Mani Codex is dated to the end of the 4th century, and all the material scattered down the silk road is derived after the 4th century. The OP would like to know if there are any 3rd century Manichaean maniscripts, papyri fragments, etc. This is all that the OP on Mani is really interested in.

I can appreciate that you are more skeptical of 4th century Manichaean insertions that you are skeptical of a continuous tradition involving the "expansion of New Testament Christian Message", and that you will allow the production of evidence to arbitrate any mitigation between these two positions. I think that is a reasonable position.

maryhelena

OK, Stephan, great idea! How about putting your theory re Marcus Julius Agrippa as the messiah on the table - as re your book. (which I don't have but would appreciate that, here on the forum, your theory could be set out for those who don't know it).

(I'm not trying to corner you here - I think it's a great idea re Marcus Julius Agrippa being the christian 'messiah' ie very important figure - it's how you get to him that is debatable......)

stephan huller

If this the thread was about that topic it might be appropriate to reference my own personal beliefs. But unlike many here, I enjoy the freedom of not necessarily have to promote an agenda. I am interested in hearing reasonable points of view and deliberately go out of my way to talk about the widest possible range of subjects.

You have to remember, I have my own blog to promulgate my own ideas. This month at my blog I have been developing a number of questions related to Secret Mark which I haven't mentioned here at the site. I have very ecclectic taste and am always petrified of coming off boring or partisan. 'We often forgive those who bore us, but can't forgive those whom we bore.' - Larochefoucauld

With that said, if you would like to start a thread on my book, any idea you might have read on my blog or any of my published articles I would be more than happy to respond and engage you in that forum.

maryhelena

Obviously, I was not asking you to post re your theory on this thread. However, it was you, yourself, that brought up your theory in this thread....and how 'more interesting' it would be to discuss that....

No, Stephan, I start threads re my own ideas.
And since I see few, if any comments re your blog posts - is there not a great opportunity on this forum to present your theory for discussion? Anyway, no pressure intended.