Transient

Hey - good stuff, keep digging - it's interesting.

Toto

But these two authors did not think that Mani was alive in the fourth century.

A more logical interpretation of these passages is that the writers involved thought that Jesus lived closer to 100 BCE.

Or it is a simple coincidence. It is not that improbable.

I think this subject is exhausted, unless you can come up with something more.

avi

I suppose you refer here to Jason BeDuhn, and Paul Allan Mirecki.

Apart from the notion that you most probably do not know anything about these two authors, I think it is imprudent to draw any conclusion about their writing, confronted with an error of 100 years.
Obviously I am not a master logician, however, I do quarrel with this illogical, utterly simplistic explanation. Why would ANYONE assume that, contrary to every gospel, JC lived closer to 100 BCE. n.b. that is quite different from writing that JC could have lived closer to 100 BCE. There is no justification for throwing out the gospels, in favor of a date one century earlier.

I am not buying it.

It is exactly just that improbable, in my view.

Oh, I am sorry. Toto is tired, we better stop now.

What?

That's it? That's your reply to Pete?

You challenged mountainman, concurrently disparaging the thread itself, by suggesting that he LIST, and QUOTE, and then, after he engages in what you have demanded, you then ignore him, claiming that the thread is tired?

What he has demonstrated, to my satisfaction, if to no one else's, is that there is a very high probability of post-Nicean modification of Mani's writings, at least within the Roman Empire, but, in view of the Silk Route, my guess is that changes authored in Rome, would eventually wind up in XinJiang.

For those who doubt such a possibility, a short voyage to Nara, Japan should relieve your anxiety: look at and admire the Hōryū Gakumonji, a wooden, Buddhist temple, constructed in the seventh century, based upon Greek architecture...

avi

Transient

and for a tired old thread going nowhere this one sure seems to attract a lot of attention :grin:

Sheshbazzar

In long elaborate disputations betwixt adversarial positions, it is common for a simple misunderstanding of the context of an opponents statements, to lead one down the trail of disputing things that were not what was actually intended.
This can be embarrassing to the one making the mistake.
It is to be hoped, that the one whose statement it was that was misunderstood, and perhaps so by, misrepresented with an erronous argument, can rather than making capital of the situation, be polite and considerate in pointing out the mistake.

Toto

No. There are 4th century authors, Hegemonius and Ephrem the Syrian, both hostile to Mani, who write that Mani appeared 300 years after Jesus. They must have known that Mani lived in the third century.

Google "did Jesus live 100 BC?"

Why?

Consider the possibilities that Hegemonius had read Ephrem the Syrian. or vice versa, or that both relied on a common source that is now lost (which I think would be the most probable), or that some later copyist inserted the same error in both, or that 300 years had some symbolic meaning, or any of the other explanations for textual errors that inventive minds come up with. Why is the most probable explanation that Mani only became known as the Paraclete in the 4th century? That doesn't even make any sense, since both classical authors knew that Mani lived in the third century. They don't write about Mani becoming known as the Paraclete in the fourth century.

I'm not tired. I just don't see any progress here.

There are classical influences all through Indian and East Asian art. That's not the problem.

Sheshbazzar

Regarding such things that are believed to have transpired in the 1st through 3rd centuries CE, we have some documentation, most of this documentation shows signs of redaction, revisions, and latter insertions. Further more, the claims made in these documents to not match up with present day archaeological evidence.

So while it is quite understandable and natural to speculate, and to suggest explanations for the content, and possible situations, at present there is no way of determining whether it was Mani's own disciples who were the ones that 'Christianized' their cult figure, or whether Mani himself in, his lifetime making the claim to being "THE Paraclete of Jesus".

Acknowledging what Stephan Huller has had to offer concerning the name (or reverential title 'Mani' - 'THE Comforter') there is the distinct possibility that the living Mani did indeed so claim, and was understood and accepted by his disciples as being The Paraclete, 'THE Comforter' based upon an expectation of arising out of the the Scriptural usages of the ancient word נחמ = 'nacham'.
In the Scriptural and Semitic languages, nacham is an every day 'idiom' one conveying a range of meanings, meanings which in ordinary usage are interpreted by context, and must be understood (or translated) in harmony with what the given context indicates to be the intended thought or interpretation.
However, when such an idiomatic word is employed as a proper personal name, there is no longer any context to limit the range of its intent or meaning.
In other words, the Semitic name 'Nacham' ('Nahum') conveys equally the thought/concept (idiom) of to have or to be -'comfort', or to 'repent', to be 'penitent', or 'regretful', and to have or to be 'compassionate'. Any of these terms may be Capitalised and be used as translations of the idiomatic name.
Thus 'THE Penitent' or 'THE Compassionate' are equally acceptable translations of 'Menachem' ("M'nacham"_ the Mem prefex being the functional equivalent of our English "Which is...")

There is no need to interject an idea that the concept of 'THE Paraclete' was borrowed from, or that it first originated in the teachings and writings of Christianity. 'Jesus' and his cult, was at the least, extraneous and wholly unnecessary for Mani to take on or receive the honorary, the title of being 'THE Comforter' or 'THE Penitent'. Perhaps even well before the nascent religion of 'Christianity' had even became established and recognised.

Of course if the teachings of the Christians and the words of their 'Christ' could be employed to affirm and to further legitimatize the claims of Manichaeism, so much the better, for why resist the promise inherent in the idiom/name when even the greatest Prophet and Teacher of the Christian faith had announced that He would in due time send 'THE Comforter'.

So what have we got for the Manichaeans? The word/idiom 'nacham' was an an ancient and integral component of their language, one that could not be removed, and once pinned upon a particular cult figure would, out of that association, and by linguistic necessity remain so fixed, even in the face of imminent threat, torture, or death.
This would be the cultural functional equivalent asking or forcefully requiring English speaking peoples to expunge the word 'Freedom' and all of its synonyms from our language! And akin to a frontal assault upon Lady 'Liberty'. How would we react or respond in such circumstances?

Me thinks most would willingly lay down their lives, rather than to live under any such tyranny of thought or speech.

Just a few things to think upon.

stephan huller

But the Acts of Archelaus provide the context (as well as other texts) of how Mani's claim was developed - the specific Marcionite interpretation of a "Christ predicted by Jesus.". Why would Eusebius or any one of the fourth century conspirators have made this up

Sheshbazzar

The integrity of the documents of the "Acts of Archelaus" is very doubtful.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ante-N...ductory_Notice

First of all notice that the "Acts of Achelaus" is a Catholic produced, 'edited' and 'adjusted' document. Not a composition proceeding directly from Mani ('Manes') or his followers.

The Acts of Archelaus is an early Catholic Christian anti-Manichaiean fabricated religious polemic.
As such it is extremely biased, fabricating and setting up non-factual imaginary situations, meetings, and 'conversations' upon which to build the strawman theological arguments desired by the Catholic clergy, often purposely and deliberately misrepresenting, ignoring, or obscuring the Manichaeans actual beliefs.

Mani and the Manichaeans did not need 'Jesus' as a 'source of', or any of the NTs Christian religious stories or writings to begin, or to prop up their religion.
Howbeit when 'Christianity' came along, and afforded them the opportunity, as was customary with their beliefs and philosophical outlook, they syncretized and absorbed certain aspects to the service of their own purposes, readily identifying themselves as also being Christians (Chrestians or 'Good men')
This of course incensed the 'orthodox' who in turn branded them as being false Christians, "heretics", 'Christan heretics' that would not obey and submit to the 'orthodox' Christians 'versions', interpretations and rulings.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!



.

Toto

All the more reason not to base any conclusions on the claim in the Acts of Archelaus that Mani appeared 300 years after Jesus.

Your own source claims: "in the statement of doctrine there is much that wears the appearance of truth, and is confirmed also by its agreement with other representations." If the AA were our only surviving source on Manichaeism, we would not be justified in drawing any conclusions.