stephan huller

When and if Manichaean texts from two hundred and seventy six years before the 'common era' appear I think it will be quite a revelation.

But seriously, there is no realistic need to find documents from the time that the original writer was living. Of course that would be better but we don't even have that for Shakespeare. If that rule was to apply throughout the study of the ancient world we'd just have a few government decrees and contracts to buy olives on which to develop our understanding of the period. Those are unrealistic expectations and amount to being deliberately imposed obstacles which prevent you from making a realistic assessment of history.

Sheshbazzar

I hardly believe these are 'unrealistic expectations' given that Manichaeism was one of the largest religious movement in 2nd and 3rd CE time-frame.
Nor are they 'imposed obstacles', they are the realistic expectations required to overcome the genuine obstacles and objections.

In the time that the NT was being developed it was already 'a question of words and names' (Acts 18:15)
I, and many others believe that there is a realistic need.
No man is an island, and these matters are related to, and connected to other questions regarding words and names employed in our NT documents.

And you are dodging your obligation as the claimant, to actually produce your -theoretical reconstruction- of Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν in the Syriac Aramaic and in the Middle Persian languages.
While you do not have Mani's original documents to go on, that fact should not prevent you from providing your best shot -theoretical reconstruction- of the -name- and the -title- that you are alleging to have been present within those original Mani manuscripts.

This is not a matter of simply the slipping of a Greek 'name' and 'title' into a Persian Aramaic writing, but of you not coming up with even so much as a tentative spelling or the pronunciation of the Middle Persian or Syriac Aramaic forms that you claim to have been present within these documents that you don't have.

Sheshbazzar

avi

yes, it is a simple typo. CE, instead of BCE.

You know that.

Good heavens.

please go back and reread ANY one of your comments--> they are replete with errors of all kinds: grammatical, spelling, punctuation, capitalization--

WHO CARES?

No one. We don't even call to your attention, your numerous, insignificant blunders.

WHY?

No, not because stephan huller is "on ignore".
No, not because you are so insulting, and rude.

Nope. We ignore your silly typographical errors, because for 99% of us, small English grammatical mistakes are banal, trivial, insignificant, and utterly worthless to waste bandwith discussing.

What is important, then?

Here's what I think is important:

Of course, you wrote this, with your pen dripping with sarcasm, we understood that much.

What we cannot fathom, is how it is possible, for a (relatively) distinguished scholar, like stephan huller, to misunderstand something as absolutely fundamental, as the distinction between evidence for a belief (in this case, Paraclete and/or (or versus) Apostle) and the FACT of that belief.

You take it, stephan, as a given, an axiom, a fact, that Mani had laid claim to have been either, (or both) Paraclete or Apostle. You accept as an absolute truth, the notion that Mani was an heretical Christian, in accord with the writings of Eusebius.

Yes, to me, Mani's self proclamation is still an 'open question'. I am eager to learn of the primary source, which refutes my contention. Until such source emerges, I continue to regard Mani as a Babylonian, writing in Syriac and middle Persian, with a profound commitment to both Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, and a passing familiarity with certain elements of Christianity, excluding, however, several of the most praiseworthy authors of that tradition: Paul, Luke, Mark, & John, and without accepting as valid, the single most fundamental, most significant aspect of Christianity, namely the divinity of jc.

Accordingly, I accept, unreservedly, Pete's hypothesis, that these notions of "Paraclete" and "Apostle", are interpolations, inserted by Post-Nicean Christians, and, perhaps, in the case of the Turfan docs, when we learn more about them, by Muslims, who after all, do accept JC as a prophet.

avi

stephan huller

'I accept, unreservedly, Pete's hypothesis that these notions ...'

Sounds like something familiar

'I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible ...'

You guys are really something. Indeed, someone long before me noted:

'Be careful when fighting a monster that you don't become a monster in the process'

Don't worry no one is fighting over your vote. ---- ------ -- ------ ------ ------.

Still 'considering' that third century Irenaeus fragment?

Transient

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
You are a joke mate.

mountainman

Or, Avi, by the post Nicaean Manichaeans themselves, attempting to "conform"
to the new Christian rules of the Roman Empire .....

No, sorry Stephan, I am not asking for any form of religious belief on this issue. The issue is really just a new idea, that the momentous religious upheavals in the Roman Empire following the implementation of Christianity at Nicaea in c.325 CE, may have directly effected the preservation of the literature of other religious systems in the ROman Empire.

There is nothing wrong supporting mainstream traditional opinion, that Mani was some sort of "Christian". However it must be acknowledged that this is simply the traditional and inherited belief that was passed down to us in all the available manuscripts that are presently available. The new idea, that it is possible that in fact Mani bacame "Christianised" as a direct or indirect result of the Nicaean decisions for the conformity of religious worship within the ROman EMpire, is just that ----- a new idea.

At present - the way I see it - we have no real evidence to test it. Yes we can rely on tradition in the absence of evidence to dismiss it which is of course your position.

Stephan, a new idea is not necessarily a monster. It can be tested for integrity with the appropriate evidence. The problem is that this evidence does not appear to be available at the moment.

You do have the option of suspending judgement on the idea until such evidence is forthcoming. But instead you have selected to reject the idea, even though I have identified these two glaring "three hundred years" anachronisms in two of the earliest orthodox sources. If you are going to reject the idea, I think it is reasonable for you to at least address the presence of these two separate "anachronisms".

stephan huller

No, the idea is idiotic. But I never meant to attack you as a person for merely coming up with an unsupportable idea. I really think you should have your own board where people who share the same beliefs as you can discuss such topics as:

how the fourth century conspiracy invented Irenaeus
the fourth century conspiracy and Judaism
why the fourth century conspiracy settled on bread for the body of Christ

Seriously, you should have your own discussion group where you and avi and likely minded thinkers can discuss these things. It doesn't belong here. You seem like a nice enough guy and I am relatively new here.

I just don't think you have provided so much as a logical argument as to why IT IS MORE LIKELY that Mani was not a Christian. You haven't provided so much as a rational argument and the fact that Shesh and avi support your position is all the more reason for you to start your own board.

If you people think that the case for Mani as a non-Christian is MORE COMPELLING than all the third, fourth and fifth century evidence which says that Mani did consider himself the Paraclete and Apostle of Christ there is - in my estimation - something fundamentally wrong with the way you examine the evidence.

There is all this evidence which says that Mani claimed to be a Christian REGARDLESS OF WHEN IT WAS ULTIMATELY COPIED and then there is NOTHING, a BIG ZERO, which supports the counter claim (except that it helps keep afloat your silly theory)

Pointing to anomalies in the copying of the Acts of Archelaus is not argument in favor of your proposition. You guys haven't come up with anything. Nothing. And yet here's the good news - you have two disciples who are willing to make fools of themselves (or perhaps they really are senseless, I don't know) to support your cause.

I think that is a great sign for you. You have no interest in listening to what more knowledgeable people than yourself have to say (Iain Gardner). You seem to have the makings of a cult leader. The first step might be to establish your own board. I don't think you people like reality anyway. What you need is an echo chamber or a larger megaphone.

Sheshbazzar

I had a great deal of interest in listening to what it was that Professor Gardner had to say, Problem was he didn't say much of anything, simply parroted a textbook recapitulation of old Christian generated tradition and dogma. I probably could have gotten identical 'information' by putting the inquiry to my local Parish priest.

Now, seeing as you are so much more intelligent and knowledgeable than all of us poor 'geniuses', a few posts above I requested your -theoretical reconstruction- of Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν in the Syriac Aramaic and in the Middle Persian languages.

It is your insistence that this name and title appeared in the original manuscripts, so it is not unreasonable to request you to provide us with what you believe to have been the original forms of this name and title within the original Persian autographs.

This simple request shouldn't present much of a problem to a man with your abounding knowledge and superior intellectual capabilities.
Perhaps you might interest Professor Gardner in assisting you in the reproduction of a -non-Greek- facsimile of the original Persian Aramaic textual autograph.

Its not like we are requesting you to write a book, only two words, or three if you also wish to take on ἀπόστολος .

Long tendentious posts will do nothing to further your argument, or to persuade us.
The two (or three) words being requested are the essential minimum to the making of your case. Provide them and we'll discuss it.

mountainman

If you can find any third century evidence there appears to be a number of interested parties keen to examine and review it. But the fact of the matter is, that unless you are withholding this vital 3rd century evidence, we cant seem to find it anywhere. OVER.


Stephan you appear to be attempting to re-classifying as "copying anomalies", what the two authors Jason BeDuhn and Paul Allan Mirecki, clearly categorize multiple times, as "anachronisms", not only in the "Acts of Archelaus", but also in Ephrem's "Against Mani". What do you have to say in your defence? Would you like to email the authors and ask them why they referred to these two independent "three hundred year" references as anachronisms?

Toto

The "anachronistic dating" does not lead to the conclusion that you are trying to force on it.

You keep repeating this as if you had some evidence. But the most straightforward interpretation of the ancient authors who write about the Paraclete coming 300 years after Jesus is that either they thought that Jesus dated to ~40 BCE, or that those authors have engaged in a bit of hyperbole, exaggeration, mathematical error, or they just rounded up the actual number. The authors do not say that "after 300 years, we have finally been told that Mani was the Paraclete," or anything even remotely similar.