tanya

Was this work, written in Middle Persian, filled with explanation about Paul's epistles, or Matthew's gospel, or other "good news" about Jesus of Nazareth?


Edit:
http://www.essenes.net/pdf/Mani%20SabuhraganII%20.pdf

I see no reference to Jesus, the gospels, Paul, the epistles, or any of the famous members of the Jewish texts (Moses, David, Adam, Abraham, etc)

stephan huller

I wasn't aware that the purpose of this forum was to denigrate Christians in any way possible for any reason possible. Thanks for informing me about your academic prejudices. Asking me to argue against every Manichaean text that survives from antiquity, every study that has ever been written all of which demonstrate and suppose that Mani saw himself as the apostle and Paraclete of Jesus, is outlandish. It is the job of renegades to disprove the established hypotheses and suppositions or the plain meaning of texts. I keep saying to you - please go away for awhile and actually read the material you are attempting to develop way out hypotheses from.

stephan huller

You seem to be stuck on the Persian language or Persia generally, thinking that Christians couldn't have existed in Persia or that Christian texts weren't expressed in that language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrahat
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3261647

This is like having a boxing match with a housefly.

tanya

Yes, perhaps my writing is too oblique, as well as uninformed.

I do not deny the existence of Christians in Persia, India, even China, from the third century on....

I deny that evidence has been presented on this thread to support the assertion that Mani was a Christian.

I further believe, whether correctly, or incorrectly, based in part upon having read Dr. Lieu's text, which identifies the enormous dimension of Mani's religious congregation in the third century, that Mani's religious following had little if any connection with Christianity, and a great deal to do with Zoroastrianism. I acknowledge having been influenced by reading the English translation of Mani's primary source: Sabuhragan, (linked a couple of posts earlier) where I encountered not even one single word recognizable as having some kind of connection with any flavour of Christianity.

It is inconceivable to me, that the Persian authorities would have allowed such an enormous public aggregation, (as described by Dr. Lieu) as had been organized by Mani, unless he remained relatively close to the authentic party line, in other words, Zoroastrianism. Here's support for that hypothesis, from the link which you provided, concerning the ancient Christian presbyter: Aphrahat, who lived in northern Babylon, from the time of Mani's death, until some seventyfive years later, at a time not long after Constantine's death:

Shapur II, is widely regarded as having been relatively benevolent!!!

mountainman

I suppose asking you to have an open mind is outlandish also?

We have no evidence from the 3rd century. All the evidence we have on the Manichaeans is dated after the Council of Nicaea. The Christian literature about Mani is now viewed as pseudo-historical polemic. The Manichaean texts about Mani are dated from the late 4th and 5th centuries. Yes they do permit the inference that Mani knew about a "Jesus Chrestos". But this inference can only be confirmed by 3rd century evidence. At present there isn't any.

stephan huller

If someone started off by teaching that 4 + 4 = whatever I want. I would not have an open mind either.

tanya

Does this cast doubt?

Apart from my own, personal disagreement with both the facts presented, and the interpretation of these sentiments by both scholars above, it remains apparent that these authors attribute to Mani, a clear repudiation of Christian values, ethics, doctrine and tradition--a tradition which obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with "light particles", whether they be in motion, or stationary.

Which religion does have something to do with "light particles"?

Zoroastrianism....

Mani was first and foremost a Zoroastrian. Whether or not his movement adopted ideas from the Mandeans is disputed. Whether or not the Mandeans in turn were derived from Jewish traditions, is also disputed. There is a potential connection of Mandeans, (and Mani's own ideas), to John the Baptist, but, the route is circular: who can say from where the initial notion arose: immerse in water to cleanse oneself: in Japan, even the native rhesus monkeys (Macaca fuscata) immerse themselves in the hot springs....

There has thus far been zero input from those who claim Mani was a believer in the divinity of the Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth. My basis for denying that Mani was a christian follower is this:

Mani's religious practice was enormous, in terms of the population of those days, and widespread, geographically. Mani had a huge following. By definition, this means, to me, that his religion was not only easy to understand, but devoid of HARSH rhetoric, rules, regulations, restrictions, and so on... A group with lots of proscriptions, and lots of regulations, may well have survived a few generations, but, in the long run, it would have collapsed. Mani's tradition was exterminated by the Christians (and Muslims, if any remnants had survived the Christian onslaught), and perhaps by the Zoroastrians as well, within Persia and Mesopotamia.

Consider, for example, the requirement for circumcision. Judaism, and its successors, are typical of intolerant faiths. Mani's following could not have embraced esoteric Jewish traditions, like "paraclete" without having asked the obvious question: How does faith in such notions, and alien words, like paraclete, help me in execution of my (difficult,) daily life?

So, the question remains: Where's the evidence, of his supposed belief in the divinity of Jesus, based upon Mani's own publications, not the forgeries imposed by 4th century Christians determined to rewrite history, and eliminate all competition?

Iskander

Christians do not consider Mani, the light king, to have been a Christian. Why would Christians forge anything to make him one of them?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm

Mani is supposed to have considered Jesus to be only one of the prophets , one of the boys, and Mani declared himself another prophet and a very special one since he claimed to be the last prophet. Islam made Mohamed the last prophet, apparently adapting Mani’s doctrine of the last prophet to their beliefs.

tanya

Thank you, Iskander, for an intelligent, thoughtful, provocative, and relevant reply. The forum needs more folks like you!!!!
I will try to answer your questions, however, I anticipate failure to persuade, simply because of my own inexpertise. Of those posts of yours which I have read, it appears to me that you are, contrarily, both well read, and quite talented in the art of communication. Acknowledging your superior skill, please do not fear trampling on my ego with your rejoinder!!! I will not be offended.

Rationale for persecuting Manichaeism, and forging Mani's texts:
It is a little bit difficult for us, living in this era, to accurately portray the life of the ordinary person living a couple thousand years ago. We suspect, maybe not know, for certain, but suspect, that an order from Emperor Constantine was either obeyed, else one's head became detached....When he gave the order that the entire Roman Empire was to follow Christianity, those implementing his instructions would have persecuted and anhilated any and all true believers in religions other than Christianity. Islam learned the technique from Christianity, and further perfected it.

Jesus as mere prophet, rather than divine, perhaps god himself, or, "son" of god: (though, why should an omnipotent deity require another pair of hands to till the field and harvest the grains???? Sons are needed by mesopotamian farmers, not only for crop production, but also to protect the premises against marauders and pirates. Does a divine entity, capable of creating the whole universe, in the space of a second, also require a son or daughter? If so, why?)

Yes, Iskander, in my opinion, Jesus was regarded as ONLY a prophet, until the time of ?? I don't know who: Justin, Irenaeus, perhaps, or Origen, or Tertullian, or maybe even Paul or the Gospel writers, (I think of the latter two groups as writing in the latter portion of the first half of the second century, with the four in the former group writing about 40-100 years later....) I really don't have a good handle on the exact dates of authorship, but I do deny any kind of first century authorship, by any Christian author.

The strongest evidence for this opinion, that Jesus of Nazareth was regarded, at the outset of the evolution of the Christian church, as only a sage and prophet, not a deity, is found, in my opinion, in the assignment during the reign of Emperor Constantine, of a birthdate for both Jesus and John the Baptist, the former receiving the lesser of the two most important holidays: winter solstice, and the latter receiving the plum: main holiday of the year, the summer solstice. Were Jesus regarded as not simply a saint, holy man, prophet, but rather as a deity, then, homage should have been made to him by proclaiming the most important date of the year as a celebration in memory of his birth.

However, Iskander, I deny that Mani, himself, regarded Jesus as anything at all. I am looking for written evidence confirming the notion that Mani had some sort of opinion of Jesus, have you a text written by Mani identifying Jesus as a figure of importance? I did not find any reference to Jesus in Mani's (last?) work, the Sabuhragan. One reason for doubting that Mani would have identified Jesus as a prophet is the latter's Jewishness. I am unclear about the date when the Christians accepted non-Jews, i.e. uncircumcised males, into their midst. I suppose that date would correspond to the time when Christianity took off, under Emperor Constantine, a century after Mani. I am not even aware of physical or written evidence documenting the arrival of Christianity in Mesopotamia, prior to Mani's evangelistic exercises, promoting his religion, (not that of the Jews-->as we know the earliest Christians were represented to the outside world.)

Evidence, bona fide, of Mani's ideas, must have been authored, originally BEFORE the arrival of Emperor Constantine. If it is a Greek, Coptic or Sanskrit manuscript, then, by definition, Mani didn't write it.

Here's a question, off topic, but presented here, as an analogy. Suppose you were interested in learning about the ancient Hittite empires. Could you point to the OLDEST extant copy of something written in Turkish, to learn about those regimes?

No. You could not. The Altaic/Turkik language speaking Hittites wrote in Akkadian, an ancient Semitic language. Are we going to be able to evaluate the Hittite cultural, religious, political, and sociological attitudes, based on such writing? The oldest extant, genuine Turkish, i.e. native language inscriptions date from post Mohammed/post Islam era, and are accordingly, contaminated with Islamic precepts.

So, too, if we seek to learn something by Mani, we must use his languages, not the languages of those, who had as a goal, the destruction of Mani's religious empire.

Mani did not write in Greek. His thinking was not Greek. His religious ideas were derived from Zoroastrianism, a Persian tradition, not a semitic ideology, though I grant you that during the Babylonian captivity, the Jews adopted some elements of Zoroastrianism into their doctrines. According to Dr. Lieu's famous book, Mani's Sabuhragan was unknown in the west, until modern times, therefore, I conclude that this text is relatively pure, relatively uncontaminated with subsequent Islamic or Christian doctrines. In contrast, the Mani Cologne Codex dates from a couple hundred years later, (fifth century), and is written in Greek, though found, initially, in Egypt.

Mani as prophet: I am unaware of this assertion in documents authored before Mani's death. I don't know whether the notion of "prophet" even existed in his religious practices. I am too unfamiliar with religions to know whether or not the concept of a prophet is unique to Judaism, and its descendants, Islam and Christianity, or if it is also found, for example, in Buddhism, a religion which, I have read, had exerted a profound influence on Mani's ideas.

In short, Iskander, I must ask whether or not you are still wearing those rose colored lenses, as you submit a reply about Mani?

Whether or not we like it, or agree with it, the evidence suggests that Christianity, post Constantine, spread because of military diktat, not because of the ideology itself. Ditto for Islam. Mani's tradition was genuinely unique in that regard, and it is very difficult for me to envision how that could have happened-->proliferation absent a blessing from the authorities, unless the ideology offered had been viewed by those farmers and sheep herders as beneficial, and comprehensible to them and their families. I don't think we can say that about Judaism or its descendants.

Iskander

You are very generous and I thank you for it.

I don’t know anything I consider as being useful because what I have read about Mani is only the opinion of others. And what is even more important I do not care whether Mani is this or that. I have read books on ancient history in order to form a confused image of what it might have been as opposed to total obscurity.

An internet reference I have found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mani_(prophet)