mountainman

Hi avi,

It is a well known theory that the writings of other "Gnostic Groups" were first authored and preserved and popularised and published in the Greek language. Only later, presumably sometime during the fourth century, were the greek writings translated into the Coptic and the Syriac languages for the sake of their preservation.

This theory may also be emminently applicable to the preservation of the Manichaean literature (it is also "Gnostic") within the Manichaean settlements in the Roman Empire from the mid 3rd century. Greek was the preferred language of the empire's conversing luminaries. I think that we will find that the literature of the Manichaeans may have been originally translated in the 3rd and early 4th centuries to Greek, for the immediate benefit of the Greek speaking eastern populace, amidst whom the Manichaeans were settling and establishing monasteries.

Later, IMO sometime (perhaps very shortly) after Nicaea, the Coptic and Syriac languages became involved in order to preserve these Greek translations of the original Manichaean texts (perhaps extant as copies of Mani's own script) . The orthodox Christian militants in the Roman Empire of the 4th and 5th centuries were burning the Greek codices related to other religious (and philosophical) views since they were well assured by the Emperor that only one Greek codex really mattered in the long run to heaven. Do you know the codex I am talking about? It was not Mani's Gospel.

I can only commend Gardner on his work. Did you miss his addendum on Augustine, the ex-Manichaean "reader"? If you did, I recommend you read it carefully. (In fact I can recommend reading all of Gardner's articles at least a few times over each.) Tomorrow's Augustine may be looking very much like today's Hegemonius. Do you know what I mean by that?

Best wishes,


Pete

stephan huller

This is not necessarily true either. The Gospel of Philip at Nag Hammadi is certainly thought to have been written in Syriac or Aramaic. There are others. We just don't know enough about the origins of much of the material.

Toto

Accusations of lying are against the rules. Where did you ever give any indication of the significance of Greek loans words or the use of the Greek alphabet in Coptic?

.

Did you miss the point that Toto suggested, and Stephan Huller confirmed in detail, that writing Coptic Greek loan words in Greek font appears to be a scholarly convention?

Only if we ignore a lot of evidence.

This is your misunderstanding of the range of meanings assigned to the term Paraclete. The orthodox identified the Paraclete with the Holy Spirit. Not everyone did.

Egads, man. Gardner did not claim that the Greek form of the words was observed in the Coptic. He gave you the precise Coptic version in a footnote, which you claimed that you could not decipher. He used Greek fonts, in a form that is familiar to scholars, in the body of the text. You are the only one who misunderstands.

stephan huller

What are we arguing about now? Avi are you saying that the Manichaean documents don't identify Mani as BOTH the Paraclete and Apostle of Jesus? Really?

Or is it that the ever present Roman conspiracy MUST HAVE added these words because they are incompatible with one another??? But in the same breath you emphasize that the Roman conspiracy wanted the word Paraclete to mean Holy Spirit. Why do you propose that the Roman conspiracy would have KNOWINGLY falsified Manichaean texts with information which contradicted the principles of the Nicaean Creed at the very point in history they were ALLEGEDLY trying to fool everyone with this false religion?

So the left hand of Constantine was actively establishing a Trinity with the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete and with his right hand he was deliberately falsifying a pre-existent (but originally non-Christian form) of Manichaeanism in order to make Mani claim things that contradicted his own newly founded Church? Really? You really think this is a more likely hypothesis than the existing model for Manichaean origins?

avi

But, I was not the individual discussing this topic on the forum.

I was attempting to explain to Toto and stephan huller, that Professor Gardner employed GREEK words in the body of his text. Both of you insisted that I had erred, and that the only words employed by Professor Gardner, were Coptic words. It was the two of you who introduced the notion of Greek loan words, in an attempt to convey the idea that, what Gardner actually wrote, were not Greek words, but Coptic words, that only resembled Greek words.

Gardner did use Greek words in the text of his article, published in the Light and the Darkness, and yet, you both insisted that I had erred, and that he had written Coptic words, not Greek.

Thank you for asking.
No, I did not miss the point.

I simply disagreed with that excuse for the sloppiness in the article, so I ignored it...

Since it seems not able to disappear, one needs to reaffirm WHY it is absolutely wrong to write an alien word in the text of an article devoted to identifying the meaning of the words unearthed in an excavation of ancient documents.

Let us suppose that we are living in India.

Someone unearths a cache of ancient documents.
Then someone decides to decipher the ancient text, and present it to the world, using a contemporary language, English, to explain the concepts expressed in the ancient texts.

Do you not appreciate why it is incorrect to introduce into an English explanation of the meaning of the documents, an Arabic word, written in Arabic, suggesting that this Arabic word was found in the documents, otherwise written in Sanskrit?

In our particular situation, we are attempting to explore whether or not evidence exists to support certain fundamental allegations regarding the philosophy of Mani. Part of our problem is that GREEK language is the language not only of the administration of the huge Roman Empire, at the time of Mani, but also the language of Christianity, up to the time of Nicea. Everything in the Roman Empire seems to have passed through a Greek and/or Christian filter.

A few hundred years later, a bit further east, everything passed through an Arabic and or Islamic filter. Mani's writings, in Turfan, were undoubtedly subjected to scrutiny by Islamic scholars, just as Mani's writings, in Alexandria, were subjected to scrutiny by Christian scholars. In both cases, I would be amazed if the documents were not recopied, with a few crucial modifications introduced, to conform to the political realities of those eras.

It is critical for scholarship to avoid introducing misinterpretations regarding the meanings of the non-English words found in the explanations of ancient texts. One sure way to avoid those misunderstandings, is to refrain from introducing alien terms into the explanation. Throwing Latin or Greek or Swahili, or whatever other, words around, may impress someone bankrolling the operation, however, it makes me suspicious of the authors' entire corpus of travail. If sloppy about the writeup, what about the reconstruction?

This is an important point, in my opinion, and one worthy of reflection. Who gains from writing αναστροφη, or δικαιοσυνη in the text explaining the Coptic fragments, instead of writing, in Roman letters, the corresponding Coptic word? Scrutiny of footnote 12 reveals that there are some additional symbols used in the Coptic version of anastrofi.

Are both of you going to accept the presence of Japanese Kanji in an English article devoted to explaining a fragment of Mani's writing from DunHuang--fragments which, as you both know, have been written with Chinese HanZi?

If not, why not?

avi

stephan huller

avi

I don't know where any of this is going. Really. Its Thanksgiving. I really think you are making things unnecessarily complicated. It really demonstrates why ignorant people should learn to keep their mouths shut about things they don't understand. This isn't rocket science. Just get a critical edition of any Coptic manuscript and you'll see the same pattern.

Just to make it plain enough for you to understand, I am going to write another email to Gardner. I am going to apologize for your email and ask him to clarify what the situation is with regards to Greek words being present in MSS

I am assuming you want to learn something even though my better judgment tells me you don't really care either way

Toto

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

avi

Thank you for inquiring. yes, I acknowledge ignorance, so I need to learn a great deal.

As far as not caring one way or the other, whether or not people insert alien text into a discussion about the interpretation of ancient fragments, this, I think is not a logical interpretation of my previous several posts. I think my position is clear, and I also think it obvious, that I do care. Happy Thanksgiving!!!

avi

stephan huller

How can an ignorant person have a position - even exhibit 'certainty' about a topic in which he has no authority to make judgements. If you really are trying to learn something, do what every other student has done from the time of the earliest schools.

LEARN FROM PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW SOMETHING.

After a while you will be entitled to develop your own 'certainty.' But given the fact that you know little or nothing, your opinions should be kept to yourself.

In the case of the questions about Greek words appearing in Coptic documents. Do what everyone else has done to answer their questions about Coptic:

GO TO SCHOOL. LEARN FROM AN EXPERT. READ A BOOK. ASK SOMEONE WHO KNOWS.

Just shooting your mouth off about something you admit you have now knowledge is unproductive and worse yet - annoying for the rest of us.

mountainman

I didn't say it was true, I said that it was "a theory".
You and others seem to have a problem distinguishing
the first statement from the second and vice verse.

Citation please. As far as I am aware Greek and Syriac are the primary two source languages being considered and debated for this Gnostic text.

But to return to the Gnostic Mani, the fact remains that there appears to be plenty of evidence that Greek translations of the original Manichaean writings (perhaps even Mani's script itself) were being preserved in the 4th century.


Summary to date for stephan ...

To the question Was Mani "Christianized"? you replied (no) ...

"if you mean can all Mani's connection with Christianity
by reduced a posthumous rewriting of history - no."

To the question Was Mani Crucified?, you replied

"probably not".,

but then went on and added the following comment ....


"but his followers developed that line of argument anyway. "


Question

I'd like to ask you, if you think that Mani was not "Christianized",
and you also think that Mani was not crucified, but that his followers
"developed that line of argument anyway", how is it that in your mind
that the Manichaeans can develop such a tradition, without any Christian
influence?

In other words you appear to be arguing against yourself.

You say Mani was neither "Christianized" or "crucified", yet his Manichaean followers "Christianized" the mode of his death.

Am I reading you correctly?



OVER