Sheshbazzar

Based upon my experience in reading Hebrew texts I strongly disagree with that assessment. The primitive Semitic root word nacham rendered in Hebrew letters is נחמ, and occurs 108 times within our Received Text of the OT, where the KJV has rendered it as 'comfort' 57 times, 'comforter' 9 times, 'repent' 41 times, and 'ease' 1 time.
And it occurs perhaps some hundreds of additional times in Books outside of the Received canon.
The word, like most Semitic/Hebrew words is idiomatic conveying a range of meanings dependent upon the context in which it is employed.
Its extent of meaning not limited to those few forms (4) which appear in the KJV, but is inclusive of virtually all synonyms of those words.

As I wrote earlier its proper interpretation could as well be 'penitent', therefore a title meaning 'The Penitent' could as well be what Mani's name meant, 'penance' being a common and revered religious concept and practice among most middle Eastern religions
It is NOT impossible to argue that Mani could have identified himself by this title with without a thought of it being in reference to any the pre-existent messianic conceptions. If it were impossible I would not be doing so.

I do not believe Mani's name, or his religion derived from any form of, or from any contact with early Christianity. Its strongly held differences point to the existence of an already strong and established theology and philosophical structure, one that latter contacts with a nascent Christian religion was not able to overcome or to remove by any means except by the means of the wholesale extermination of its adherents.

I am not at all impressed with the quotation of Walter Bauer, The quotations, conclusions and assertions that being drawn from 3rd through 7th century Orthodox christian literature are a sick joke, and an embarrasment to honest scholarship.
So many assertions being made, with all of them perched on top of a pile of Roman Catholic polemical bullshit.
Its the equivalent of having the Red Chinese writing the official history of The United states of America, and then having them exterminate any American that disagreed with their 'improved' version of American History.
I wouldn't buy such a distorted 'history', and I am not 'buying' that version of Christian history that the Roman Church and Christianity has been long been peddling.

stephan huller

Shesh

Come on this isn't even a fair fight. If Mani, the contemporary Marcionites and the contemporary rabbis were all speaking Biblical Hebrew one might need to pay attention to your analysis. But they weren't.

The only question that matters is how the word and its root were used in Aramaic and possibly Syriac (and possibly Mandaean Aramaic but even that is a stretch). Your point doesn't work because Mani and his contemporaries weren't engaging one another in Hebrew

Invest in an Aramaic dictionary

stephan huller

You guys have no familiarity with the Christian traditions OUTSIDE the Roman Empire. Maybe you guys better take a break and actually learn about these traditions before you apply the familiar 'conspiracy arguments' to people who weren't controlled by Rome or Byzantium. Just take the weekend to read up on Ephrem and his contemporaries. Let's start this back up on Monday when you actually have some familiarity with the original material.

Sheshbazzar

Are you therefore claiming that the words 'nacham' and 'menachem' have a distinctly and clearly different meaning in the Aramaic and Syriac languages than they do in in the Hebrew language?

Interesting if so. Please provide the evidence.

Just an observation, many Jewish men bear the name Menachem.

Transient

The argument is the date - as we know from the attitude of "scholars" here about the data provided by the RCC in their late dated manuscripts, the earlier the manuscript the more reliable it is in terms of trying to determine its value in describing events etc. Later date writings can easily reflect changing opinions etc over time.

Transient

I did a google search for Mani Menachem and got heaps of results of people with those 2 names living today - not being Jewish I had no idea they were used - for some it would be obvious.
It's a bit like the name Yahashua or Yeshua or whatever one wants to think Jesus was called - there were heaps of them back then - same with mani and Menachem by the sounds of it.

stephan huller

I am saying that the only attested use of menachem in Jewish Aramaic sources is one who comforts mourners. I am using Jastrow. If you can find others that's great. The bottom line is that Mani wasn't speaking Biblical Hebrew.

It seems bizarre to me that you could argue that Mani comes from menachem and that menachem should be defined by the Biblical Hebrew BUT - and here's the kooky part - menachem is not a messianic term.

I never cease to be amazed at the arguments that get brought forward here. Somehow the most convoluted and unbelievable explanation is the one that gets promoted.

Why isn't the obvious meaning the right one?

stephan huller

Many Jews are also named Moses or David. What's your point?

stephan huller

Please read the writings of Ephrem. You will see he routinely says eye opening things. There is little possibility that Ephrem's writings were changed by any Roman editor. Opinions should follow from familiarity with the subject matter. Please familiarize yourself with Ephrem's writings.

The argument stands. Ephrem doesn't say that Mani really wasn't the believer in Jesus. This argument would decimate the contemporary Manichaean Church if it were true.

Instead Ephrem treats Mani as if he always claimed to be a believer in Jesus and that his coming fulfilled the original expectation for a Paraclete. This certainly means that Mani believed that Mani really did claim to have some sort of association with 'Christianity.'

Now let's consider the implausibility of the 'Manichaeanism was changed by the Imperial government after Nicaea' argument.

The dates of Ephrem (ca. 306 – 373).

Nicaea 325 CE

So when Ephrem was nineteen years old or within a few years of that date either Manichaeanism transformed itself from a non-Christian to a Christian heresy (for reasons that have never been explained by anyone).

There is some sense among those with whom you associate that this was done either by Eusebius or to escape punishment from the Imperial government. I don't understand the argument. Perhaps someone can lay it out for me.

The point is that in order to understand Ephrem's writings you have to accept that orthdooxy was a minority position in the east. As Bauer notes Marcionitism was likely the orthodoxy at Edessa. This is one reason why he likely does not cite from the Acts of Archelaus. Archelaus was a Marcionite Bishop.

Now back to this wonderful theory developed to rescue Pete's theory from destruction. At some point between 325 and 337 (Constantine's death) Manichaeanism was supposedly changed from a non-Christian religion to one which accepted Christianity. How did the converts from non-Christian Manichaeanism influence the non-Christian Manichaeans in Persia and Osrhoene? Why did these people who lived outside the control of Rome feel the need to submit to Nicaea? This especially when the dominant orthodoxy OUTSIDE the Roman Empire did not submit to the Imperial sponsored religious orthodoxy.

It doesn't make sense.

Indeed we see the exact opposite phenomenon happening in the example of Ephrem - i.e. he was adapting Nicene orthodoxy to the customs and practices of the heretics beyond the borders of the Empire:

I keep saying to you guys when you actually become familiar with the evidence from the period, Pete's theory doesn't make sense.

I don't know why the obvious answer isn't the right one - i.e. that Mani was exactly who he, his followers and his enemies all acknowledge he claimed to be viz. someone claiming to be the Paraclete of Jesus.

Perhaps you can explain this a little better to me without having the benefit of any knowledge of what you are talking about.

Sheshbazzar

Menahem;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menahem

Quite a long time ago eh? Did you notice that Menahem is the proper personal name of the Isrelite King, and not applied as a 'messianic title'?

Syraic language;
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_language

One might wonder where they ever found such a similar idiom and name.

Aramaic language;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

Seems that at least some Israelis were, and are able to read, write and communicate in both the Hebrew and in the Aramaic.

The ancient Semtic root word is in common to all three languages, holding the same range of meaning within all three.

Now. If you desire to continue to carry on an argument to the contrary, it is time that you bring out your linguistic evidences and proofs.