Sheshbazzar

So the names and titles were not actually spelled out? but were supplied by the readers?

avi

Hi Toto!!!

Thank you for your comments, all of them noteworthy, as usual. Sorry for my MANY mistakes.

Let us begin, step by step, ok?

Footnote 12, friend, Toto, is incomprehensible to me. It could read "spin is a great man", and I wouldn't know the difference.

I cannot read it, because it is WRITTEN in COPTIC, not Greek.

Ganz im gegenteil, here, on the other hand, is Gardner's TEXT from page 96 (not the incomprehensible footnote 12 from the same page):

Now, maybe I did err, if you explain to me, that this GREEK word, 'anastrofi' was inserted by Professor Gardner to explain the English word 'conduct', and does NOT appear in the Coptic fragments, as a Greek word, as I had interpreted the text of Professor Gardner's article.

Ditto for page 97, where Professor Gardner has inserted, into the TEXT, the Greek word δικαιοσυνη, dikaiosuni, representing, according to Professor Gardner, the English word: righteousness.

Now, if I have erred, or, misinterpreted, or misunderstood Professor Gardner's article, then, that is a different kettle of fish, however, if I am NOT wrong, and Professor Gardner was indicating that these two Greek words ARE INDEED found embedded within the Coptic fragments, representing a translation of the original Syriac language composed by Mani, then, that is helpful evidence, for these are not "loan" words, but rather, GREEK WORDS.

Let us, briefly, consider two scenarios, where one OUGHT to include a Greek word, in a Coptic translation of a Syriac original document:

a. If Mani himself, had employed these two Greek words. end of story.

b. Alternatively, it would also seem reasonable, to me, at least, given the geopolitical realities of Egypt at that time, to include these two Greek words in a Coptic translation of a Syriac original document, if Mani had written those two words uniquely, instead of in Syriac, some other foreign language, for example, Middle Persian, or Sanskrit.

Absent those two situations, and assuming that I have not misunderstood the text of Professor Gardner's article, which, conveys, at least to me, the notion that those two Greek words are found in the Coptic text, I am obliged to conclude, in harmony with Pete's OP, that the document, from which the scribes translated Mani's text, into Coptic, was written, not in Syriac, but in Greek.

ps. loan words I would assume, maybe in error, would still be written in Coptic, not Greek symbols.....

avi

avi

Well, thanks, Toto, for sharing your opinion, umm, I disagree, because of the fact that we are discussing the significance, if any, of a purported translation from Syriac into Coptic, with extensive employment of Greek "loan words".

Just as Japanese with perhaps 20% of its vocabulary derived from Sino-Tibetan roots, has NOTHING in common with Chinese, so, too, Coptic, an African language, has NOTHING to do with Greek, an Indo-European family member.

On the other hand, English, a mongrel language if ever there was one, is comprised of Danish, German, Latin, Greek, French and Spanish vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. All of those languages are of the same, Indo-European family, however, and therefore, I reject the suggestion that the Norman Invasion, has the same weight, for purpose of an analogy, as the imposition of English on the Japanese, or Greek on the Egyptians.

avi

avi

I am, as usual, writing with insufficient clarity.

Let me try again.

Let us assume, for sake of argument, that these two words,
αναστροφη, and
δικαιοσυνη

are NOT Greek words, as I have written, but rather, are Coptic words, which simply look like Greek words.

Then, can you explain, why are they not written in Coptic?
Yup, right as rain, but, do we write these words using Greek symbols?

avi

avi

perhaps so, but the question is, or, in my opinion, ought to be:

Did Mani use Nomina Sacra?

If not, then one must inquire:

a. why not?;

b. how can one claim validity of the Coptic translation, if it is acknowledged that it contains constructions unrelated to Mani, though purporting to represent Mani's ideas.

avi

stephan huller

Does this ever end? If there was ever a case of the cart leading the horse in pseudo-scholarship this is it. One after another, ever weaker objections to the obvious conclusion from the evidence that Mani claimed to be the apostle and paraclete of Jesus. It would would almost tolerable, ALMOST I stress, if they offered up the excuse that would continue to look for other evidence to support their conspiracy theory and until then were suspending judgment. Then we could abandon this futile exercise of attempting to enlighten irrationality.

Yet it is so annoying to see people piss in the hurricane force winds of reason. Their actions stain the whole board

Iskander

Mitten wir im Leben sind
Mit dem Tod umpfangen,
Wen such’n wir der Hülfe thu’,
Dass wir Gnad’ erlangen?


Though in midst of life we be,
Snares of death surround us;
Where shall we for succor flee,
Lest our foes confound us?

Toto

Note that the Coptic alphabet includes the Greek alphabet, so you really can read most of that footnote. You will see the word anastrofi there, in Coptic letters that are the same as Greek letters.

I just can't go on.

Go back and start at the beginning. Review the Coptic alphabet, which Stephan Huller supplied for you. Realize that Mani did not write in Coptic or Greek, but this is a translation.

Please stop writing these posts that pile one error on top of another.

Transient

Yes I agree. Everyone who doesn't agree with Stephan please shut up. This is the Stephan Huller board after all and we should all respect that, Pete especially.
How can we possibly come up with new ideas and test new things if we keep on questioning the current theories and inventing new ones.
New theories and advances only come from building on and accepting old ones - to that end I propose that we all accept the long held tradition of roman catholicism which has a long tradition and has been covered by scholars for thousands of years - how could they all be wrong?

Toto

There's nothing wrong with questioning the current theories. But Pete has not had a new idea in years. And he reacts to the testing of his ideas by denying the evidence.