avi

Thanks for the link.

Can you explain to me, in a sentence or two (at most) how Nag Hammadi relates to Manichean sources?

My impression, perhaps completely wrong, is that Nag Hammadi represents a collection of manuscripts written in Greek and Coptic. Are there also Syriac and Persian texts in those jars unearthed in Egypt? Does someone claim that Mani wrote in either Greek or Coptic?

Here's an ominous quote, from the index of the contents, for Codex VI:
Makes one wonder, which OTHER texts from Nag Hammadi have been "heavily modified"?

avi

avi

Thanks for asking. The answer to your question is found in the link you then provided, i.e. in the text by Gardner and Lieu, in other words, the CMC, or Cologne Mani Codex, the main source of their own summary.

So, according to these two Mani scholars, Mani claimed to be the Paraclete, not any old, run of the mill, paraklete, scurrying about, comforting us senile, geriatric patients.

avi

stephan huller

That's right THE Messiah announced by Jesus just a role later developed to suit Mohammed (for the identification of Mohammed as the messiah see Maimonides's Iggeret Teiman). The reason the name menachem is developed is because this figure would 'comfort' the mourning Jews who longed for independence and the return of their own monarchy. Let's not forget that Menachem was a king of Israel.

Sheshbazzar

Stephan, allow me explain this to you one more time. Even if you were able to produce actual documents that could be shown positively and unquestionably to be dated to say the 40th year of Mani's lifetime, that would still not be evidence that they actually came directly from the hand Mani, or that he was even aware of those particular writings or their contents.
Even if you were to turn up Mani's skeleton, still clutching one of these Manichaen documents in his hand, it would not be any evidence that he himself had penned it. There are many rational scenarios that could equally validly explain such a circumstance

One might well consider the case of the infamous 'Mormon Will' that was allegedly penned by the hand of Howard Hughes.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/forgery-info.htm

Mani certainly had a -lot- of 'ambitious ' students.

And as far as producing a photo of Mani writing anything, such could only be further evidence of Mani fans still engaging in forgery,
photography being anachronistic to the 3rd century CE. > Ron Wyatt 'archaeology'

The Holy Roman Catholic Church is infamous for the burning and destroying of any religious texts that they could not find a way to 'integrate', adopt and 'preserve'
and harness to their 'horse' for the furtherance of their religious agendas.
Even the very New Testement texts themselves are filled with examples of Catholic textual tampering by means of late alterations, redactions, and additions. So much so that there remains not one trustworthy provably authentic paragraph to be found.

If these 'Church Fathers' had so little respect for, and so few qualms about, so abusing, altering, and forging their own 'sacred texts', Why in Gods name would you think that they would faithfully preserve and convey Mani's or the Manichean's documents?
Just because something is 'old' and has been 'written', that is no evidence of it being authentic.

stephan huller

But if we are trying to piece together what the beliefs of the Manichaeans were how is it possible to deny that they believed that Mani was the Paraclete when everyone says it is so (believers, opponents)? Again I think this is hyper-criticism. By these standards we couldn't believe any historical documents related to religious groups.

stephan huller

And remember please a will is different that a concept which defined group identity. What were people joining the Manichaean faith if not for the idea that Mani was the awaited Paraclete? So you accept the idea that there were Manichaeans before Nicaea. Do you have any rival theology proposed for the group? If not the existing understanding stands. Just because SOME documents have been forged in the history of religion does not mean ALL documents were forgeries. My uncle died in a car accident. The appropriate response is not to ban automobiles as a result of that death.

Toto

But are you so sure that the theological meaning of the Paraklete was the same for the first three centuries of Christian thought, among orthodox and heterodox Christians?

stephan huller

Putting together history is not an absolute science. Scholarship attempts to determine what is most likely. Given the available evidence the most likely scenario with regards to Mani and Manichaeanism is that Mani claimed to be the Paraclete of Jesus. All the literary sources point in that direction. If there were to be some ancient documents discovered tomorrow written at the time of Mani's death that he really claimed to be Liza Minelli our historical assumptions would have to be revised. Sometimes I don't think that you people understand that science isn't dealing with absolutes. The possibility that there might be forgeries is weighed against the amount of forging that would be required to account for all the available testimonies. To that end it is simply more likely than not likely that Mani declared himself to be the Paraclete of Jesus.

Again what are the other possibilities that would account for all the evidence? Is a fourth century conspiracy really the better explanation?

Toto

If you are going to cling to the theoretical possibility that any document could be forged, you can't actually prove that world history all started last year, based on forged documents and implanted memories.

If this were an item of religious faith, you might want to demand that sort of certainty. But for normal historical research, you might as well be content with the best explanation of the evidence.

Forgery is a possibility that needs to be considered. But you can't raise the burden of proof so high that everything is assumed to be forged.

The Church Fathers felt a need to bring their scriptures into conformance with what they saw as the Truth. Why would they forge heretical documents?

But these documents are not even from the Church Fathers.

We still have no credible motive for anyone to commit the forgeries that you propose, so I conclude that the forgery hypothesis has no explanatory power in this case.

Transient

You go on and on and on like some lord of the jungle. Normal science is about repeatable experiments and that is of course where historical "science" differs drastically.
I have the right to view all documents from the past with great skepticism and you can go on and on and on about your rubbish but I will still remain skeptical - it is the greatest asset of any true scientist.
Now you can ignore like you have in previous posts anything I say that is of value and ignore the chance to apologize for your past insults. Your character is unable to anything else.
Pete's theory is at least as viable as your weird theories and no less proven. You seem to think you are the god of logic and historical analysis but your folly is obvious to all.
You have failed miserably to back up your claim with evidence that pete's theory is dead - you waffle and abuse instead of producing evidence.
It would be best for you to stick to defending your own theories.