Toto

This is true, but the sect around Elchesai, which you admit to have been part of Mani's syncretic religious development, is a brand of unorthodox gnostic Christianity.

Christianity was not the center of Mani's beliefs, but it was part of the mix, and this mix is evidence that Christianity existed before Nicaea.

If you are willing to admit this, what is the problem with Mani borrowing the concept of the Paralete? I'm not sure what the problem is here. Pete needs Mani to be a Christianized Buddhist to preserve his Constantinian forgery hypothesis. But otherwise, what reason is there to reject heretical documents that the church did not write, and did not preserve?

stephan huller

Neither did Marcionitism, Ebionitism and a number of other influential sects. Mohammed thought he was the Paraclete of Jesus from sources outside of the Catholic tradition.

Sheshbazzar

Why do you think finding an original 3rd century manuscript in readable condition would be a far shot?

From all the information supplied, the Manichaen religion was spread far and wide at a very early date, and carried into several different areas and cultures,
some very remote from the 'clean up campaigns' of latter orthodox powers.

Archaeology has managed to turn up thousands of many types manuscripts dating to well before the 3rd century that are still perfectly legible.
In a religion as widespread, as influential, and carried as far abroad as Manichaeisim is understood to have been in the 3rd century, one certainly would not expect all of its sacred books would be of the CMC matchbox size, or that this single tiny book really, and accurately 'tells the whole story' and is 'the last word' on Manichaeisim, that will ever be found.
Seriously, by what is already known I find that idea to be extremely unlikely.
I would lay odds that there are still an abundance of as yet undiscovered 3rd century Manichaen religious sites and materials that are just waiting to be uncovered.

Rome may have got to most of them, but it's very unlikely that it got to them all.
What little Manichaeian manuscripts we do have are late, and show evidences of a lot of 'amending' and crude stitching together.

Therefore I think it premature to become dogmatically attached to the now present paradigm. While there is the yet pregnant possibility of discovery of as yet unfound and unexamined, troves of century earlier documents, that well could with only very few differences, utterly demolish the present take on these matters.

Anyway, I'm in no rush, I haven't purchased a ticket, and harbor no fear of missing the boat.

I've always been taught that patience is a virtue, And that good things come to those who wait.
So I think I'll just pass, and let this present ship sail without me.
And wait for my ship to come in.

Hey! What is that, by George! I do believe I see sails out there on the horizon!

Oh....Bye bye! Bon voyage! Au revoir! en Auf Wiedersehen! :wave:

Sheshbazzar

Metaphorically speaking of course.

We are all going to have to just wait together and see what it will be that the future will actually bring.

mountainman

While we are waiting for the all important evidence ....

Have you already addressed the argument raised in regard to the
independent appearance in two early 4th century works by two
different authors, the anachronous implication of the phrase "more than 300 years" .... ?

AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO ANACHRONOUS DATA ITEMS

(1) "MORE THAN 300 YEARS" between Christ and Mani (AA 31.7)

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

How do you explain the agreement with these two anachronisms? Why should I buy "They both made the same mistake" or "Jesus was really born 100 BCE (and these authors were both privy to this opinion)".?

If these two writers were aware of the story that Mani claimed to be the paraclete in the mid 3rd century, then they both would have immediately just written "more than two centuries". Why didn't they just write "more than two hundred years"?

It logically follows that neither author was aware of this 3rd century claim and story. It also logically follows (the very real possibility) that the claim was not made until the early 4th century, when the authors were writings their works, "three hundred years" after Jesus. That is, sometime after Nicaea, the Manichaeans commenced to assert that their man Mani was actually a follower of Constantine's Jesus. These authors are just reporters, but their anachronous report about Mani being called the paraclete strongly suggests the possibility this association happened "three centuries after Jesus" was supposed to have been incarnated.

That is, Manichaeanism was purposefully "Christianized" by the Manichaeans in a last ditch effort to preserve their religion after the Nicaean decision by which the entire Roman Empire was to be forthwith "Christianised", and by the sword if necessary.

Originally, I think Mani was a Buddhist. Tangentially, some people think Mani may have been responsible for the authorship of the text known as "The Hymn of the Pearl", an ascetic allegory about the path of life and the pearl of great price, which was literally embedded by insertion in the Gnostic "Acts of Thomas", by placing it in the mouth of Thomas, who had been thrown into an Indian jail (for extorting the King).

stephan huller

Dear Stephan,

The question whether Mani regarded himself as a Christian is - to my mind - answered from his Epistles. There is no reason to believe that the remains of these in Coptic, though rather fragmentary, are not authentic. Mani repeatedly introduces himself as 'apostle of Jesus Christ' (as he also does at the start of the living Gospel) and refers to 'my good saviour' Jesus Christ. Of course, what he understood as the gospel and 'Christianity' was rather different to what we now characterise as the mainstream tradition, but in his own mind I am certain that Mani thought he was a Christian.

The name Mani (or rather Manichaios in Greek) goes back to the Aramaic 'hidden vessel'.

kind regards, Iain.

stephan huller

For those interested m'ana in Aramaic means vessel and clothes; chasai (like 'Elxai') means hidden or secret. An interesting possibility I hadn't considered. I did a quick Google search. Don't see this argument made anywhere in print. Will track it down or send another email. Let me know if anyone has any further questions to give the kind professor.

stephan huller

I found the reference in Journal of Early Christian Studies Volume 11, Number 2, Summer 2003 "Jürgen Tubach-Mohsen Zakari suggests a fascinating transformation in the meaning of Mani's name from 'hidden vessel' in Aramaic to 'madman' in Greek."

stephan huller

Actually, when I dig up the reference in other articles by the authors (J Tubach and M Zakeri ‘Mani’s Name,’ in J van Oort, O Wermelinger and G
Wurst editors, Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West: Proceedings of the Fribourg-Utrecht International Symposium of the IAMS (Nag Hammadi and
Manichaean Studies 49), Leiden, 2001, 272-286) I get a different etymology. Andrew Wearring (http://escholarship.usyd.edu.au/jour...ewFile/254/233) cites the paper as follows:

Manichaeism is a religion named after its founder, the prophet Mani, or Manichaeus as he came to be known in the West after his Aramaic epithet Mani Hayya, or, ‘the living Mani.'

mani chayya seems to make more sense than mana chasy but I am not finished investigating. It is worth noting that among the Mandaeans Hayya is fixed after at least a few names i.e. Manda de Hayya, their chief hypostasis.

stephan huller

I found the reference where the authors develop their arguments for the meaning 'concealed vessel.' I actually already cited from it before. It was the one where they don't disprove the origins from menachem. They just push it to the side in favor of this etymology:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gjm...20mani&f=false

I can only get part of the article in my preview. I will go to the library today and print it off and scan it for everyone to see. I will also have a few of my friends who happen to be Aramaic experts take a look at it.