stephan huller

And let's not forget that the same section of the AA begins with the reference to "less than 300 years." Everyone agrees the original text has been poorly copied into Latin. But none of this helps Pete

maryhelena

Or how about 24/23 bc? - ie 300 years back from the death of Mani in 276 ce - that surely would be the cut off date. One can of course stretch it a bit and go back to 40 bc - 316 years (which would be 16 years prior to the death of Mani when he would be about 45 years old). All this dating is of interest historically - and that is where the interest should be. Not on a gospel storyline that has a non- historical Jesus figure doing the rounds in Galilee and Judea in 30/33 ce. That date is only of interest as a setting for the gospel storyline - not as a historical confirmation of the existence of the fictional character that has been set within that historical time frame. There is no historical Jesus giving prophecies re a Paraclete/Comforter that is going to be sent to non-historical followers.

The 40 bc to 37 bc history re the last Hasmonean King of the Jews and his crucifixion and beheading is of considerable interest. So also is the birth of two sons to Cleopatra of Jerusalem which Josephus has set down (re Wikipedia) to between 24/21 bc. One of these sons is Philip the Tetrarch. (just for now going along with the Josephan story re Herodian history......).This is the history that could well be of relevance to the 300 years re Mani. If these 300 years have an relevance at all it is to historical events and not to a pseudo-historical gospel storyline. It is short-sighted to think one can be counting forward from 30/33 ce to 333 ce.

OK - now I'll run for the hills......

stephan huller

Actually Mary Helena that just might explain it. Thanks

avi

What do you make of Professor Gardner's report of finding Greek words in those Coptic fragments, which he has attributed to correspondence of Mani?

a. Mani included Greek words and Greek symbols in his private correspondence written originally in Syriac? Why would he do that? Does Syriac lack words defining concepts like agape, and sophia?

b. Mani wrote Syriac, which was copied into Greek, instead of Coptic, but why? (i.e. why were those specific words not copied into Coptic--> does Coptic lack vocabulary items, comparable to agape and sophia?)

c. Mani included Sanskrit, or middle Persian, within a fundamentally Syriac text, and those specific, Persian or Sanskrit words were then translated as Greek?

Stephan, can you not understand one's consternation, upon finding Greek words, in a supposedly Coptic translation of Main's letters?

If Professor Gardner had found Persian or Syriac words, ok, no problem, but Greek? Isn't that just a tad too precariously close to the presumed native language of Eusebius and Athanasius?

Please, where is this third century primary source of data, of which you have written? If there is none, and all we have today, are some Coptic fragments, with Greek text embedded within, then, my conclusion is that such text is inauthentic, as regards a document purporting to represent original correspondence of Mani.

Those Greek words, in a supposed Coptic text, rather, appear to rest in harmony with the notion, explained by both Pete, and Sheshbazzar, that these Coptic fragments, attributed to Mani, represent interpolated texts, in which Greek has been inserted, by those who wish, for whatever reason, to paint Mani as a devout Christian.

avi

stephan huller

Avi

I haven't been following this issue but Coptic has a lot of Greek loan words. Gardner and I have become friendly. Do you want to hear how someone who knows what he is talking about explains it or is this just another attempt to "raise questions" to keep hope and faith in Pete's theory alive?

Gardner is really nice (as most Aussies are). I think will respond to any serious inquiries.

From what I have gathered from him a lot of the fourth century Coptic fragments haven't even been examined yet

maryhelena

:notworthy:

Seriously though - if it is history we are after re the backbone of the gospel storyline, ie the fabric from which that story has been created, then historical details, facts, need to be put on the table. Taking Josephan history re the birth of Philip (Wikipedia) at around 22/21 bc - he would be around 50 years of age in 28 ce. Pilate ruled from 26 to 36 ce. Not yet 50 years is an age the gospel of John connects with it's figurative Jesus figure....Philip the Tetrarch dies (Josephan history here.........)in 34 ce. Thus the Josephan storyline re Philip ties in with both the gospel story re its figurative Jesus - and interestingly, with some ancient documents re the 300 years separating Mani from a Christ/anointed figure, ie a historical figure born plus minus 300 years prior to the death of Mani - a historical figure that was deemed to be, somehow or another, relevant to ongoing theological/prophetic/salvation ideas....

(the gospel of Luke muddies the historical waters re its use of the 70 symbolic number in 3:1 and his 6 ce birth date - thus consolidating the focus not on history but on an interpretation, a prophetic interpretation of historical realities. Minus the gospel of Luke - the historical backbone to the Jesus story is much easier to see....)

avi

But, excuse me, stephan,
I was NOT writing ANYTHING hostile or critical about professor Gardner.

I asked YOU, what you make of Professor Gardner's claim to have found GREEK words, in a Coptic translation of text purported to have been authored originally by Mani, in Syriac. I trust that you share my opinion, that Mani did not write in Coptic or Greek, either, for that matter.....

My question was addressed TO YOU. Not to professor Gardner, who has kindly replied to my email inquiry. (I agree with your assessment, he is very pleasant, and good natured, thanks.)

You, stephan, are the one who wrote, disparagingly, about me, that there is Here I am, stephan, I am looking at Professor Gardner's evidence, and I observe Greek words.

How am I to interpret this evidence, stephan?

Please offer an opinion on WHY there should be those specific Greek words in a Coptic document, claimed to represent a translation of letters originally penned by Mani.

I ask again:
A. Do we find Greek words, written using Greek alphabet, in these Coptic language fragments because Coptic lacks words comparable in meaning to 'sophia' and 'agape'?
B. Do we rather, find Greek words, in this ostensible translation of Mani's text, because Mani himself wrote Greek words? In such a case, does Syriac lack words corresponding to the Greek words sophia and agape?
C. Or, alternatively, did Mani originally write the equivalent of these two words, in some language other than Syriac, for example, middle Persian or Sanskrit, and the author, or scribe, took it upon himself to translate then, from that language into Greek, in order to clarify to the reader that Mani had not been writing those specific words in Syriac?

Are you certain that I am the one who is "fundamentally" wrong in assessing the significance of this evidence?

avi

stephan huller

And I noted that it is not uncommon to find Greek loan words in Coptic documents. How this proves or even suggests that the Greek words were added later is beyond me. An Imperial conspiracy could presumably found a scribe to forge documents in any language without leaving tell tail signs of their forgery.

In my experience documents associated with the Coptic Church exhibit a similar pattern. The Coptic version of the ordination of the bishops and metropolitans immediately comes to mind.

The documents may have been translated from a Greek translation of an Aramaic original.

The offer to consult with an expert still stands

avi

Now we are making some progress!

You bet!

Absolutely agree with you.

No doubt whatsoever, that the Coptic fragments were indeed copied NOT from Mani's Syriac original document, but rather, from a Greek original, a document NOT authored by Mani.

yes sir.

And, unless I have badly misunderstood mountainman's ORIGINAL POST, that is precisely the point he endeavored to make.

avi

stephan huller

Yes but I am not an expert. I haven't even looked at the example of Greek words in the Coptic. Why does what I say matter? I am completely ignorant.

I will send another to Gardner to see if he thinks that the Coptic fragments are based on Greek originals which in turn are based on an Aramaic ur-text.

Whenever in doubt consult the experts.