mountainman

Well you could ask him what he makes of those two "three hundred years" anachronisms in the following two early 4th century sources:

(1) "MORE THAN 300 YEARS" between Christ and Mani as the Paraclete (Hegemonius AA 31.7, two separate mentions))

(2) "MANI, WHO THEY SAY IS THE PARACLETE THAT COMES AFTER 300 YEARS." (Ephrem AM)

I'd be interested in what he has to say.

avi

email sent today: iain.gardner at sydney.edu.au

Dear Professor Gardner,


I have read with great interest, your article published in the anthology, "The Light and the Darkness", edited by Mirecki and BeDuhn:
"The reconstruction of Mani's epistles, from three Coptic codices."

At the end of this article, you kindly write, on page 104:

Thanks for that sincere announcement. I intend to take advantage of your generosity.

I have many, many questions, not only about Mani, in general, but also, about your specific research, in particular, and may I begin, by writing the obvious:
What an interesting excavation, you have undertaken, at the Egyptian oasis town: Ismant el-Kharab

Sounds like a combination of arduous, difficult, challenging, and exhausting labor, but one of great potential reward.
Congratulations on a job going well.

My first question on your research, concerns your statement on page 93:

A. One requires at least one reference here. It certainly is not intuitively obvious that Mani was a Christian, of any sort at all, in my opinion. Mani grew up in Persia controlled Babylon, living in an Elchasaist community which regarded the writings of Paul, John, Luke, et al to be heretical. Mani was clearly influenced by living proximate to the Silk route, and he traveled to Eastern Persia, including Afghanistan, and India itself, seeking out Buddhist influences.

B. Did Mani also write epistles in the style of Zarathustra, whose influence on Mani was evidently sufficiently strong that he composed one of his seven texts in Middle Persian, and presented it to the Emperor of Persia, a devout Zoroastrian?

C. "long been known" ? how long? Has it been known since Eusebius decreed that Mani was a madman, in Historia Ecclestiaca? Was it acknowledged by the Persians, that Mani wrote in the style of the Greek author, Paul?

D. Was Mani's execution by the Persians based upon his having been a Christian, rather than a deviant Zoroastrian?

My contention is that we don't know for sure, anything about Mani.

Continuing with page 93 of your article:

You write:
E. By "title" I assume that you refer to the phrase "Apostle of Jesus Christ". Can you please identify one of the so-called "primary sources", because your footnote, on the other hand, lists Lieu's compilation, as well as your own accomplished effort in Kephalaia, once more citing Coptic sources, which can only, at best, be regarded as secondary sources, i.e. translations of Mani's works, for Mani himself did not write in Coptic, did he? As far as I am aware, Mani wrote in Syriac and Middle Persian, not Greek, not Armenian, not Coptic, and not Latin. Is that incorrect, do I err in that regard?
I am aware of no primary sources at all. The much touted CMC from Koln, written in the fourth century, in Greek, is obviously not a primary source, either!!!

F. "canonical" Where did the delineation of Mani's scriptures originate, and by whose hand? Your footnote 3, providing references for this statement, includes, in addition, J.C. Reeves "Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony", but I didn't observe any references from Buddhist or Zoroastrian sources. Do you imagine that Judaism was of such importance to Mani? If so, why didn't Mani travel to Jerusalem, rather than going all the way to India? If fascinated by Judaism, why not master Hebrew?

In my opinion, the reason for claiming Jewish/Christian influence over Mani, has little to do with Mani's gnostic philosophy, and a great deal to do with a western, European, scholarly, Judeo/Christian orientation since Eusebius. Mani spends his entire life, (apart from a voyage to India to investigate Buddhism more intimately,) living in Persian controlled Babylon, and our only references to primary and secondary sources of his work, represent texts authored by Jews and Christians living in the Roman Empire, during the past seventeen hundred years?

Turning to the next page, 94:
G. Here is the link to the Turfan Collection of documents entitled "Texte in Manichaischer Shrift".
and one notes as well, that there is also a link to the DunHuang research, apparently with HanZi translations of Mani's work .

Are we to understand, then, that these fragments from Turfan, are regarded as PRIMARY sources, i.e. written in Mani's own hand? I understand that the script is unique, developed by Mani, but couldn't that script have been copied by talented scribes, rewriting his original works? Do we have a date for these fragments? Do we know how they managed to escape destruction by the Muslim invaders? How do we ascertain with confidence, that these fragments, once upon a time intact documents, had not been rewritten under Islamic supervision? Do we know for sure that the fragments' origin precedes the seventh century? How has such a date been established--by C-14 analysis?

Turning to page 95:
H. Agape, sophia? Why are you introducing these Greek words in the context of epistles ostensibly written by Mani, which had been translated into Coptic, and excavated at Ismant el-Kharab? Do you mean to suggest that the fragments you discovered are written in Greek, rather than Coptic?

I. Why is there a presumption that the author was Mani? Why should not the author of these Greek fragments be Aristophanes, if the contents are agape and sophia?

On page 96, we again encounter Greek. Why?

Thanks again, for encouraging discussion of your research,

Sincerely,

avi

Sheshbazzar

I don't see anything of signficance here that we weren't already aware of.

Other than Professor Gardner's confirmation of his uncritical accepance of the contents of the very documents we are calling into question.

And that he believes Mani's name goes back to a entirely different Aramaic root than the one that Stephan Huller repeatedly attempted to connect it to in multiple posts in this thread.

Time to ask Stephan.
Does Professor Gardner's reply finally put to rest your speculations that the name Mani is derived from Menachim?
If so, Why?
And if not, Why not?

stephan huller

I think that the fact that there are a number of scholars who seem to prefer another possibility is a difficulty. I am still evaluating the evidence and consulting with people who more than I do but certainly if I can't come up with a plausible argument to counter their claims then I would have to admit defeat.

The point as always that one can't accept belief merely because it is self-serving. You have to formulate a rational argument, a case for your position not merely assume 'whatever works.'

Sometimes it's okay to say 'I am not sure.'

avi

When we reflect on this comment for a moment, it does make some sense, right?
Gnostics were quite interested in codes, cryptic names, hidden messages, and so on, yes? Mani was surely a Gnostic Babylonian, living under Persian governance, with a de facto Zoroastrian infrastructure underlying the social fabric in which he matured as a young man.

This reply from Professor Gardner simply (in my view) reinforces the notion that Mani was anything but a Christian. The oft-quoted, supposed presumption that Mani was either an "apostle of JC", or "the Paraclete", represent post Nicean forgeries, in my opinion.

avi

stephan huller

How could any rational person use Gardner to support the claim that Mani was "anything but a Christian" when he explicitly states that he is certain that Mani was a Christian.

The dangers of reading selectively

stephan huller

Scholars rarely put forward "certainty" with regards to a question. If anything they tend to avoid making definitive statements

They are very different from used car salesmen

Sheshbazzar

Sorry to have to say it, but it is the very fact that Professor Gardner is so uncritical, so ready to unquestioningly accept the contents of these documents at face value, and simply pass 'em on, that only reinforces our doubts.

Or to put it another way, and this is not intended to be insulting-
The reply recieved was much too shallow to be at all persuasive.

Professor Gardner certainly wasn't going out on any limbs, the little he offered was nothing but a recapitulation of the old uncritical, and well worn church opinion.

If that was all we are seeking, we could dredge it up out of old text books for ourselves.
We seriously doubt the claims, but even more so doubt the type of 'scholarship' that never rocks the boat by challenging or questioning the integrity of these source documents.

To put it bluntly, we smell a rat.
When these documents have Mani, an Iranian prophet living under Persian rule, in the midst of a Zoroastrian society,
speaking and writing in Syriac Aramaic and Middle Persian go about claiming that he is an "Apostle of Jesus Christ"
as though he had lifted these terms straight out of some 4th century -Greek- text.

If some one wants to persuade us that Mani actually wrote the -Greek- term ἀπόστολος or the name Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν in his original texts;
Then they sure as hell better expect to have to provide -contemporary- said texts, and prove where it is in those texts that this -Greek- title and name actually appears.

Translations and versions will not do, only an original text, and in its own language.
Sans that, we are under no obligation to accept what appears to be a preposterous claim.





.

stephan huller

Yeah, it's still an 'open question' as to whether Mani claimed to be the Paraclete of Jesus or the Apostle of Jesus. One of many other 'open questions' that may never be answered like - whether night follows day, whether hot is the opposite of cold, or whether some people on this board have nothing better to do than keep on arguing a point that was settled a week ago (at least for rational people).

No, he wouldn't have used the Greek term apostolos. Given that 'Paraclete' had messianic connotations Apostle probably did too (as it did for the Marcionites and as it DOES for the Samaritans). Here is a book to start with

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zda...page&q&f=false

Once again BOTH Mani and Mohammeed are connected to the titles 'Paraclete' and 'Apostle of God.' In Arabic apostle = رسول (rasul). Mohammed's title is 'the apostle of God'

In Aramaic shliha = apostle from the root שָׁלַח. I think the Marcionite emphasis on the definite article (ho apostolos) is developed from the Samaritan title of Moses (which might have been known to early Jewish groups). The Samaritans use it to mean 'the spokesman of God.' For more read Wayne Meeks excellent overview the Prophet-King p. 226f.

Sheshbazzar

Fine, now all you have to do is produce an actual Mani text conclusively dated to before 276 CE that will confirm your theory regarding ἀπόστολος .

In your reply seem to have overlooked Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν

Feel free to tell us how you believe Mani the Iranian Prophet would have spelled and pronounced Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν in Syriac Aramaic and in Middle Persian.
And again back up your -theoretical reconstruction- with the tangible evidence from an actual Mani text dated to before 276 CE that will confirm your theory.



BTW.
There should be no need of an either or regarding the two separate claims.
If he at all taught the type of Christian religion that you think he did, it would be highly likely that he would have employed both claims.

Personally, I believe, that when all of the evidence is in, it will be found that Mani did actually assume the title of ha' Manacha. period.
and that the rest Ἰησοῦν or Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν did not at all appear anywhere within the original texts.
And this is my theory.

When and if actual pre-276 CE Mani texts come to light, then and only then, will it be apparent which theory will prove validated.

Sheshbazzar