Toto

Tanya - you are attempting to reason from some ideas that seem rather confused. Everyone except Pete thinks that Christianity existed well before Constantine. Christians and Jews were regarded as separate groups from the first century on - it is just speculation that some Christians were identified as Jews.

This was not actually what Constantine did. He made Christianity a legal religion and gave it state support. It was only later emperors who forced belief on citizens. But it's not clear how this relates.

This is confusing a number of concepts. "Omnipotence" was a philosophical concept. Christians and Jews and pagans who believed in a god or gods could see that god didn't appear to operate that way, and that their god(s) didn't always answer their righteous prayers, so they tended to invent intermediaries - angels, spirits, demons, and a Son. For pagans, gods had sons right and left.

Things are not a linear as you seem to think. Paul is the earliest writer and seems to regard Jesus as divine. We don't know about the gospel writers. Justin Martyr wrote in the middle of the second century, and seems to have a historic Jesus in mind, but one who was also divine. We can't be sure about a lot, because the proto-orthodox church established the doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that Jesus was fully human AND fully divine, and tended to edit earlier documents. We know that there was at least one heretical group, the Ebionites, who thought that Jesus was fully human and of a different substance than God the Father; they are usually described by the church as "re-Judaizers," implying that they were not the earliest.

Constantine does not stand at the outset of the evolution of the Church. He reshaped it, but he had a lot of material to work with. Many people think that he established Jesus' birth at the Solstice because the birth of Sol Invictus was also celebrated at the solstice. Other gods may also have had "birthday" celebrations at the Solstice.

But Constantine was quite clear that Jesus was fully god and fully human.
Christianity is defined by its acceptance of uncircumsised men, which happened sometime in the first or second century, depending on when you date the events referred to in Paul's letters or the Book of Acts. This is well before Mani's time.

We have no record of the earliest Christians being regarded as Jews. The split between Judaism and Christianity might have happened in the first century.

Does this change your opinion of the likelihood that Mani drew from Christianity?

stephan huller

Why does it matter what she thinks?

Toto

That's part of having a discussion. And if her thinking is based on a few incorrect assumptions and those can be rectified, isn't that a good thing?

Besides, the less incorrect stuff on the internet, the better.

mountainman

But I am not suggesting an impossibility. We have evidence that the Manichaens in the Roman Empire of the early 5th century had "Jesus Chrestos" in their writings. We have evidence that a Christian revolution occurred in the Roman Empire at Nicaea, and religious privileges were essentially withdrawn for all other religions and cults except the monotheistic centralised state Christian church.

We have no evidence from the 3rd century.

Mani has been presumed to be Christian ever since Eusebius and the orthodox heresiologists of the 4th century labelled him as such. Scholarship has demonstated that the texts of the heresiologists Hegemonius and Ephrem against Mani are pseudo-historical polemic, and untrustworthy as historical sources. The real history of Mani has been reconstructed using later Manichaean sources that have been found as far afield as China.

Mani's apostles preserved Mani's "Gospel" and the Epistles he had sent to these apostles, and they were very successful in establishing MONASTERIES in the Roman Empire, in Egypt and Rome.

I see Mani as a kind of a Persian Buddhist. He was patronised by the Sassanid Persian King Shapur. Shapur's brother Peroz may have had similar ideas since he minted coins with an image of Buddha on them.

Until we find Manichaean evidence before the Coucil of Nicaea, it is still logically possible - not IMPOSSIBLE - that the original writings of Mani never mentioned the character Jesus from the Constantine Bible. The INFERENCE that we will find evidence in 3rd century Manichaean writings to Jesus is based on 2 things:

1) The historical assertions of the 4th century heresiologists (which are unlreliable on Mani)

2) The presence of "Jesus Chrestos" in early 5th century Manichaean writings.

This inference (followed by modern scholarship on Mani) is possibly true but is is not unconditionally true, and neither is it a FACT.

mountainman

He invented his own script but we can expect that when Manichaean monasteries were founded in the Roman Empire (Egypt, Rome) in the mid to later 3rd century, that translations to Greek and to Coptic may have occurred. We know also that Diolcetian order these writings to be burnt along with the Manichaeans of Egypt in the last decade of the 3rd century.

Mention is made of a Manichaean monaster in Rome c.312 CE and a question asked in an earlier thread which has not really been discussed in any depth is whether Eusebius would have had the opportunity to read "The Gospel of Mani" as part of his historical research from that year onwards.

Toto

EXCEPT for the archaeology of Dura Europa, and all those documents that have been dated paleographically to the 3rd century by the more skeptical paleographers.

They labeled him a heretic. We went through this before. What motive would a Christian have to pretend that Mani was a defective Christian? It doesn't fit the known categories of forgery, in which prominent pagans are falsely claimed to be Christian.

mountainman

The OP is Mani. We have no Manichaean evidence from the 3rd century.
All my comments in this thread relate to Mani and the Manichaean writings.



Let's just start with the evidence - and an agreement that the heresiologists were forging material about Mani.

Recent academic treatments make it clear that the 4th century heresiologists wrote pseudo-historical polemic against Mani, and twisted history to suit their polemics. Mani's history and the history of the Manichaeans is now reconstructed from Manichaean sources.

Saint Augistine, who claimed to be a Manichaean reader, for all centuries until recently was regarded as an heresiological authority on Mani and the Manichaeans. But recent comments cast doubt on the integrity and reliability of Augustine as an authority on Mani.

stephan huller

But why would you expect to have third century documents from a HEAVILY PERSECUTED religion that got off the ground in the third century. I can see raising suspicions about normative Christianity IN A GENERAL SENSE owing to the fact that our existing testimonials appear CENTURIES after 30 CE. But the fact that we don't have Mani's handwriting or original autographs from his movement is hardly suspicious. Gardiner has found early fourth century documents in Egypt from this movement that began in Mesopotamia perhaps fifty or so years earlier. How early would any reasonable person (notice I didn't say 'you') expect Egyptian documents to be? I am amazed we have what we have as early as we have it.

tanya

"clear" evidence = ? Acts of Archelaus ?? Link to this "form of Marcionitism"??? Can you offer even one scholar's evidence based text, supporting this opinion?

It is customary to furnish a quote affirming your allegation. I deny having quoted Dr. Lieu our of context. I urge you to back up your unfriendly comment with a quote from Dr. Lieu's book, illustrating your point above, about Mani's supposed belief in "Roman-centered Christianity", focusing on the evidence employed by Dr. Lieu in arriving at that conclusion.

Well, if he had been consistent, that ought to make your task a little easier. Please locate a quote from his book to support your assertion that I quoted Dr. Lieu out of context.

You obviously don't mean that. This is just a bit of sloppy carelessness, not a true error, correct?
"Clearly", Mani never became the Paraclete, right? I believe that you wish to indicate an opinion, (based not on genuine data, but rather on this very sorry Acts of Archelaus,) that Mani only imagined himself to be the Paraclete. Right? You surely don't intend to write, as you have, that Mani did in fact become the Paraclete.....

I am someone, and I doubt your assertion wholeheartedly:
--Christian messiah (how strange, after reading not three days ago, on another thread of this forum, where you claim that the messiah is a guy destined to crack heads to save Israel), so which is it? Christian or Jewish? How could you know whether a guy living a couple thousand kilometers east of Jerusalem, in the middle of the third century, CE, supported the Jewish versus the Christian definition of the messiah?
--what he thought? How do you know what Mani thought?

Well, we agree about something: AA is wretched. It is a tertiary source, not a primary source, as you had written, earlier on this thread. AA, Acts Archelaus, is without any value, in my opinion.

I am confused, no doubt about it. I cannot deny what is obvious. As I reread some of my comments, I become quite flustered, because some of those comments appear so incoherent, illogical, uninformed, and moribund. I ought to take a sabbatical now, and commence with some serious reading.

I do not yet know well the issues involved in assignment to the "Pete" camp, but, from reading the polemic directed against him, it sounds like I may need to crawl over to his foxhole.... The history of the early church is fascinating, I listened to a Bart Ehrman presentation on Youtube, cover to cover, enjoyed it a lot. That experience taught me that I still know almost nothing. In short, and from an especially low leaning pedestal, I acknonwledge finding the idea that Christianity, as we define it, from Rome, commenced more or less at the end of the third century. I don't know the actual dates, when the various docs were written, some no doubt were composed a century earlier, but none were composed, in my opinion, in the first century.

However, my ignorance about the beginnings of Christianity has little to do with the OP: how Mani (or was it Paul?) claimed to be the Paraclete, (a Jewish notion,) while visiting a Christian sect basing itself on the non-existent writings of Marcion.

I do challenge the prevailing concept, evidently supported by many forum members, that "it is just speculation that some Christians were identified as Jews." There are several books written on the subject of Jewish-Christian sects of the second century.

In my mind, if no one else's, it relates in this fashion:
Now a state religion, the written evidence must conform to the proclamations, ergo, modifications of all documents, accomplished by gathering up all the old, and issuing new papyrus. The co-option of various religions, including Mani's, was designed to permit/encourage, or persuade former participants to join/or rejoin the Christian faith.

yes, not so linear. agreed. Paul may have been the earliest writer, but I am unaware of any definitive data on that subject. I am not even sure that the experts are in accord on which letters of paul are authentic!! Have you a link to some authentic attestation of the dates of publication of the genuine letters?

Evolution is not linear, either. He stands at the center of the upsurge, because he was commander in chief. He is the one who decided appointments, and doctrine. He approved construction of basilicas, non-existent before him, and he is the one who organized assembly and mass production of authorized bibles. Yes there were some banal, tiny, insignificant attempts before him, just as there were undoubtedly attempts to free the slaves in the Southern tier of states, prior to the arrival of Lincoln.

Here, I beg your pardon, Toto, I cannot resist: nonsense.

of course that is most certainly not the definition of Christianity. Many, almost all, other religions accept uncircumcised males. The first Christians were Jews. The first group of Mesopotamian Christians were likely combo guards: not pure point guards: They followed mosaic laws, including circumcision requirements, but accepted some part of the Jesus story. The change, gradual, did not pick up steam until Constantine, when the flood gates opened up. In the time of Mani, the Jews would have been tolerated in Persia, with synagogues, and so on... ditto for Babylon. Christians, however, were suspiciously affiliated with the archenemy, ROME. I am filled with doubt that Mani would have argued the Christian agenda. How would he have gained thereby? Mani's religious movement, without explicit reference to Christianity or Judaism was, despite having no miiitary prowress, the largest organized religious movement in the Near East, in the third century.

stephan huller

Off the topic completely and aimed at no one in particular, I have often wondered what many of my blogging friends look like and whether the old adage holds true = monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo