Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gnostic claims to Paul of Tarsus for PMCV

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Hey Crispin.... ... legend than fact, the only reference i found was to later CHRISTIAN legends that exacerbate and/or distort his importance, not JEWISH
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 3 8:05 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Crispin....

      >>>"when you state "Gamaliel too is a person built more out of
      legend than fact," the only reference i found was to later
      CHRISTIAN legends that exacerbate and/or distort his importance, not
      JEWISH legends. And this goes back to my ideas
      about "claimsmanship," i.e., creating false or dubious associations
      in order to lend credence or authority to one's stature and
      importance."<<<

      Exactly. Of course, even though a Jewish page is unlikely to
      emphasize the legendary nature of the Jewish sources as much as it
      would the Christian sources, even this site admits that the Jewish
      tradition has at least elements that are open to some
      question.... "Although the reliability of this tradition,
      especially as regards the title of 'nasi,' has been justly
      disputed". I think we are saying the same thing here
      about "claimsmanship", then.

      >>"okay, i didn't interpret the JE as positing that "the vast
      majority of Jews in this era were Pharisees," <<<<

      Oh, I wasn't talking about anything I read in the JE when I stated
      this. To be fair, I should state that there is a kind of Pharisee
      and pharisee. What I mean is perhaps I should be more clear to draw
      a line between the essential school and the sympathizer/lukewarm
      practitioners. Consider this another way. There has been a general
      assumption that the "Pharisees" were the early Chasidim, but this is
      an assumption not a proven fact. This would obviously be talking
      about the sects leaders and more aredent practitioners. The modern
      day sect known as the "Chasidim" (not to be confused with the
      earlier group), as well as Reform Jews, etc.... are all offshoots of
      the Pharisees (in spite of a couple derisive passages in the
      Talmud). In spite of this connection, how many modern Jews are
      ardent orthodox believers?

      I am well aware of the usual outline given in Bible dictionaries and
      the like that try very much to outline the sects in such specific
      terms that they create the impression these sects were very
      cohesive. In truth, though, as with the early Catholic church, there
      were disagreements that were not only at some academic level, but
      included the common person. We should not forget that what exactly
      would constitute the Jewish sacred text was not fully formed yet.
      Remember, the DSS actually preserves various versions of many books,
      some that agree with the Septuagint readings (and this is not only
      the Greek texts that do so), some that agree with the readings
      familiar today, and some readings that are entirely different from
      either.

      If we read Catholic history we get an impression of a cohesive early
      Christian church that didn't exist. To some extent we should think
      about this when we read modern Jewish history as well.

      So here we come into a problem. In spite of the supposed exclusive
      nature of some of the sects, how was the common Jew associated with
      the over all religion? How can Paul, and Josephus, Hillil, be from
      the same sect? Let me state that a different way. The Sadducees, as
      we all know, were connected with the Temple cult and the priesthood.
      But who was sacrificing at the temple and participating in this
      cult? Did the Samaritans (who WERE a Jewish sect in spite of the
      seperation other Jews tried to create) go to the Temple run by the
      Sadducees and sacrifice?

      I think your reaction to this is to state that Paul, for instance,
      wasn't, and that the Pharisees were quite exclusive. I, in turn,
      think the inverse is more likely.... that the sect held quite a
      range of views within its ranks.

      The second presentation on this page http://mb-
      soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm is pretty typical of the general
      academic view in that even of the two theories probable, both accept
      that Pharisaic Judism was wide reaching, and not just a small group
      standing up for the common man. (BTW, the last presentation on this
      web page does not agree with most scholors view of the historical
      evidence at all).


      "The traditional view holds that the Pharisees were the creators and
      shapers of late second temple Judaism. They were not so much a sect
      as a dominant party within Judaism. According to the traditional
      view, although not all Pharisees were legal experts, Pharisaism was
      the ideology of the vast majority of the scribes and lawyers. Thus,
      as a group the Pharisees were the guardians and interpreters of the
      law. Jewish institutions associated with the law, such as the
      synagogue and the Sanhedrin, were Pharisaic institutions. While
      disagreeing over whether the Pharisees were primarily politically or
      religiously oriented, proponents of the traditional view agree that
      the Pharisees commanded the loyalty of the masses in both spheres."

      or the other view...

      "The second point of view is a relatively recent development.
      Proponents of this position argue that when the inherent limitations
      and tendencies of our sources are taken into account, the Pharisees
      come across not as the creators and shapers of Judaism but merely as
      one of its many expressions. In essence, according to this view, the
      Pharisees were a rather tightly knit sect organized around the
      observance of purity and tithing laws; on most other issues the
      Pharisees reflected the range of views present within Judaism."

      On to another subject here. Crispin, you state....

      >>""Converse Accident." would you mind terribly
      simplifying this for me. i need some help."<<

      Sorry about that. What I meant was that it is generally accepted
      that Pharisees represented a wide range of opinions, so that by
      being so specific about who exactly the Pharisees were the passage
      takes an attribute of a theorhetic few and applies it as a sweeping
      absolute. To build off your previous modern political model, what if
      I said "Republicans are the voice of the common man"? First off, the
      notion is obviously rhetoric from the start, and could be debated.
      It is true that the Gov. of Cali says this is true, but others might
      disagree. Even if some people believe this to be fact, not only is
      it debatable, it is also false on the grounds that not all
      Republicans believe the same things. Same is true of the Democrats,
      and same is true of the Pharisees. It simply is not possible, from a
      critical perspective, to take such a statement seriously.

      >>>"i don't disagree with this, but i didn't find anything to
      support it. the JE site states: "The Septuagint" ('Interpretatio
      septuaginta virorum' or 'seniorum'). It is a monument of the Greek
      spoken by the large and important Jewish community of Alexandria"<<<

      However, the DSS discovery pokes a whole in the JE here. First, we
      find Greek texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and second we see readings
      in agreement with the Septuagint. We can't simply religate this to
      some strange few off in Alexandria as if it is isolated.

      >>>"a little tongue-in-cheek abuse of language on my part, though i
      was under the impression there were still some Manicheans around"<<<

      There is a new movement attempting to recreate Manichaeism (probably
      a few). However, Manichaeans aren't technically Gnostic.

      Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and let
      other people jump in.

      PMCV
    • Tsharpmin7@aol.com
      Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and let other people jump in. PMCV hi PMCV... yes, very long, and i ve enjoyed every second.
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 3 8:20 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and let
        other people jump in.

        PMCV
         
         
        hi PMCV...  yes, very long, and i've enjoyed every second.  but,
        PLEASE, someone else jump in here!
         
        your friend,
         
        Crispin Sainte III
      • Marina
        ... let ... hmmm..I will add something to this converstation, but it will have to wait until tomorrow, it is late and I have to get up early for work in the
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 3 9:16 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Tsharpmin7@a... wrote:
          > Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and
          let
          > other people jump in.
          >
          > PMCV
          >
          >
          > hi PMCV... yes, very long, and i've enjoyed every second. but,
          > PLEASE, someone else jump in here!
          >
          > your friend,
          >
          > Crispin Sainte III


          hmmm..I will add something to this converstation, but it will have to
          wait until tomorrow, it is late and I have to get up early for work
          in the morning.

          Marina
        • Mike Leavitt
          Hello pmcvflag ... Actually I have read somewhere that there are actual Manacheans still active in the Malabar part of India, original ones, not neos. How
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 4 5:59 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello pmcvflag

            On 03/04/05, you wrote:

            > There is a new movement attempting to recreate Manichaeism (probably
            > a few). However, Manichaeans aren't technically Gnostic.
            >
            > Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and let
            > other people jump in.
            >
            > PMCV

            Actually I have read somewhere that there are actual Manacheans still
            active in the Malabar part of India, original ones, not neos. How
            true to the original tradition they are at this point and how
            influenced by Hinduism (even the Packistani Sufis are), I don't know.

            Regards
            --
            Mike Leavitt ac998@...
          • elmoreb
            ... let ... Sure, Ill jump in ;) I was actually wrestling with the problems of Paul not long before this thread started. I think I mentioned it in my last
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 4 9:07 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Tsharpmin7@a... wrote:
              > Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and
              let
              > other people jump in.
              >
              > PMCV
              >
              >
              > hi PMCV... yes, very long, and i've enjoyed every second. but,
              > PLEASE, someone else jump in here!
              >
              > your friend,
              >
              > Crispin Sainte III

              Sure, Ill jump in ;) I was actually wrestling with the problems of
              Paul not long before this thread started. I think I mentioned it in
              my last thread.

              I was just looking at a few different versions of the Bible. I
              looked at 4 different translations: NIV, KJV, Revised standard
              edition, and the Darby version. The Revised Std didnt have any
              references to Gamaliel at all. The wording in the NIV and KJV seem
              to disagree on this matter.


              from the NIV Acts 22:3
              "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in
              Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and
              taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,
              and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. "

              It seems to attribute the city to Gamaliel, not Pauls education.

              from the KJV Acts 22:3

              "I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in
              Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and
              taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,
              and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day."

              Sounds alot like he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel. Seeing
              as how the KJV is nearly useless, I dont think I would pay it too
              much attention.

              I'm more willing to go with the NIV translation. As mentioned
              before, a student of Gamaliel wouldnt be out to quell
              the "Christian" uprising. On top of that, there isnt alot of
              information saying the he specifically persecuted followers of
              Christ. Acts says he persecuted people according to the jewish laws.
              If he WAS a student of Gamaliel, this wouldnt be too odd. Gamaliel
              was a lawyer so to speak ( according to acts) and it would make
              sense his student would also be in the same business. However, most
              Christians take this to mean that he persued the "Christians" at
              Damascus to bring them to Jerusalem to be punished. Which makes no
              sense, because Im fairly sure there were many more "Christians" in
              Jerusalem than Damascus at the time.

              Acts itself is a bit odd. It's most likely written by the same
              Author who wrote Luke. And its authenticity is proven by " the voice
              of tradition." Meaning that the orthodox Church agreed that it was
              authentic because it agreed with them. It also Coincided with the
              Gospels ( same writer as luke.. it better coincide). Which is the
              exact same reason the Gospels were chosen. Sounds like circular
              reasoning to me.

              Before I draw any conclusions, is there any extra-biblical evidence
              of Paul/Sauls travels?
            • elmoreb
              As a correction to my last post, the Revised std edition does mention gamaliel and it agrees with the NIV version. I was using a bible/version search and got a
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 4 11:02 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                As a correction to my last post, the Revised std edition does
                mention gamaliel and it agrees with the NIV version. I was using a
                bible/version search and got a little careless :P My apologies.
              • pmcvflag
                Hey Mike Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts, but last I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last spotted there. If you
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 5 8:22 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hey Mike

                  Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts, but
                  last I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last
                  spotted there. If you are talking about some new discovery that I
                  had not heard about, I am unable to find anything about it.... and
                  no one else I know seems to have heard about it either. Can you give
                  us some more info? It would certainly be extremely interesting.

                  PMCV

                  --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
                  > Hello pmcvflag
                  >
                  > On 03/04/05, you wrote:
                  >
                  > > There is a new movement attempting to recreate Manichaeism
                  (probably
                  > > a few). However, Manichaeans aren't technically Gnostic.
                  > >
                  > > Golly, that was long *lol*. I guess I should rest a bit here and
                  let
                  > > other people jump in.
                  > >
                  > > PMCV
                  >
                  > Actually I have read somewhere that there are actual Manacheans
                  still
                  > active in the Malabar part of India, original ones, not neos. How
                  > true to the original tradition they are at this point and how
                  > influenced by Hinduism (even the Packistani Sufis are), I don't
                  know.
                  >
                  > Regards
                  > --
                  > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                • Mike Leavitt
                  Hello pmcvflag ... I wish I could, but some guy at church was talking about a journal article he had read, and I was not part of the conversation. My older
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 5 10:12 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello pmcvflag

                    On 03/06/05, you wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > Hey Mike
                    >
                    > Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts, but
                    > last I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last
                    > spotted there. If you are talking about some new discovery that I
                    > had not heard about, I am unable to find anything about it.... and
                    > no one else I know seems to have heard about it either. Can you give
                    > us some more info? It would certainly be extremely interesting.

                    I wish I could, but some guy at church was talking about a journal
                    article he had read, and I was not part of the conversation. My
                    older son Tom may know something too. I'll cc: him in on this, just
                    in case. Not being into Manacheanism that much, I did not retain
                    much of what I heard or read about it.

                    Regards
                    --
                    Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                  • Thomas Leavitt
                    Hmm... the Gnosis Archive has a page on Manicheanism that references it surviving up to the present century in the Orient .
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 6 2:16 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hmm... the Gnosis Archive has a page on Manicheanism that references it
                      surviving up to the present century in the "Orient".

                      http://www.gnosis.org/library/manis.htmv

                      Unfortunately, I can't recall, at this point, exactly where I heard that
                      either.

                      It may not be correct... the Catholic Encyclopedia, which unfortunately
                      seems to be the primary source for most site's information about
                      Manicheanism, says that:

                      Within a generation after Mani's death his followers had settled on the
                      Malabar Coast and gave the name to Minigrama, ie "Settlement of Mani".

                      ... someone may have assumed that they continue to survive there.

                      This article,

                      Mani: Gnostic Prophet of Dualism
                      http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040712mani.html

                      on a Mormon site of all things, says:

                      says: "Manicheism was most successful among the nomads of Central Asia,
                      where it was declared the official religion by the king of the Uigur Turks
                      in 762, and survived until the sixteenth century."

                      Unfortunately, without citing a source. However, the authors seem to be
                      reasonably authoritative.

                      According to this essay, "During the Yuan (Mongol) period Manichaeism
                      experienced something of a revival in China, only to be outlawed as a
                      heretical Buddhist sect under the Ming legal code of the fourteenth
                      century."

                      http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/exhibit/religion/manichaeism/essay.html

                      the source cited here is (1) Richard Foltz, Religions of the Silk Road
                      (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).

                      Another essay states:

                      "It survived in Southern China as the "Religion of the Venerable Light"
                      until the 17th century e.v."

                      http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/religion.htm

                      again, without footnoting a specific source (though a list is appended at
                      the bottom)

                      I dug farther, and found this item on Manicheanism in China (the Iranians
                      seem, logically enough, given the tradition's origin there, very eager to
                      claim Manicheanism as theirs, and to document its history).

                      It ends with this item (lots of good/interesting stuff before it):

                      http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Manicheism_in_China.html

                      The religion probably finally died out in the first decades of the
                      Twentieth Century. The temple on Hua-paio Hill, termed by the local
                      worshippers as a chao-an (ca'ao-an) i.e. a "thatched nunnery", is still
                      used as a Buddhist temple where Mani is worshipped as a Buddha with
                      special powers. UNESCO made the site of the Manichean chao-an a World
                      Heritage Site in 1991 as a unique relic of an extinct world religion.

                      There is a Manichean temple in Quanzhou, China, and this guy

                      http://www.amoymagic.com/Quanzhoupage.htm

                      claims that "the Persian Manichean religion survives today only in
                      Quanzhou", although it is not clear from other entries whether actually
                      means there are practicing Manicheans there... on the other hand, as a
                      resident foriegner, he appears as likely as any non-native to know that.

                      Other data:

                      Mani and Manichean seems to be a common word in India, without any direct
                      relation to the religious tradition of that name.

                      ... on balance, I can't find any evidence to support the conclusion that
                      there are Manicheans practicing today that have a direct line of
                      historical descent. On the other hand, the religion was very widespread,
                      Central Asia is still very much "off the grid", so who knows what may
                      survive in pocketes as a local traditionnnn that no Westerner has ever
                      become aware enough of to investigate?

                      Regards,
                      Thomas Leavitt

                      P.S. On a political note, here's an interesting rebuttal to claims that
                      Bush's worldview is "Manichean".

                      http://hnn.us/articles/7202.htm

                      This is kind of amusing... apparently, an author has listed Mani as the
                      world's 83rd most influental person in history (right ahead of Lenin).

                      > Hello pmcvflag
                      >
                      > On 03/06/05, you wrote:
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> Hey Mike
                      >>
                      >> Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts, but last
                      >> I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last
                      >> spotted there. If you are talking about some new discovery that I had
                      >> not heard about, I am unable to find anything about it.... and no one
                      >> else I know seems to have heard about it either. Can you give us some
                      >> more info? It would certainly be extremely interesting.
                      >
                      > I wish I could, but some guy at church was talking about a journal
                      > article he had read, and I was not part of the conversation. My
                      > older son Tom may know something too. I'll cc: him in on this, just in
                      > case. Not being into Manacheanism that much, I did not retain
                      > much of what I heard or read about it.
                      >
                      > Regards
                      > --
                      > Mike Leavitt ac998@...
                    • lady_caritas
                      Thomas, thank you for all your research. I look forward to reading your information. Also, I ll correct and repost the first and last links from your reply
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 6 7:55 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thomas, thank you for all your research. I look forward to reading
                        your information.

                        Also, I'll correct and repost the first and last links from your
                        reply that I couldn't initially access:

                        http://www.gnosis.org/library/manis.htm

                        http://hnn.us/articles/7202.html

                        Thanks again!


                        Cari


                        --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomas@t...>
                        wrote:
                        > Hmm... the Gnosis Archive has a page on Manicheanism that
                        references it
                        > surviving up to the present century in the "Orient".
                        >
                        > http://www.gnosis.org/library/manis.htmv
                        >
                        > Unfortunately, I can't recall, at this point, exactly where I heard
                        that
                        > either.
                        >
                        > It may not be correct... the Catholic Encyclopedia, which
                        unfortunately
                        > seems to be the primary source for most site's information about
                        > Manicheanism, says that:
                        >
                        > Within a generation after Mani's death his followers had settled on
                        the
                        > Malabar Coast and gave the name to Minigrama, ie "Settlement of
                        Mani".
                        >
                        > ... someone may have assumed that they continue to survive there.
                        >
                        > This article,
                        >
                        > Mani: Gnostic Prophet of Dualism
                        > http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040712mani.html
                        >
                        > on a Mormon site of all things, says:
                        >
                        > says: "Manicheism was most successful among the nomads of Central
                        Asia,
                        > where it was declared the official religion by the king of the
                        Uigur Turks
                        > in 762, and survived until the sixteenth century."
                        >
                        > Unfortunately, without citing a source. However, the authors seem
                        to be
                        > reasonably authoritative.
                        >
                        > According to this essay, "During the Yuan (Mongol) period
                        Manichaeism
                        > experienced something of a revival in China, only to be outlawed as
                        a
                        > heretical Buddhist sect under the Ming legal code of the fourteenth
                        > century."
                        >
                        >
                        http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/exhibit/religion/manichaeism
                        /essay.html
                        >
                        > the source cited here is (1) Richard Foltz, Religions of the Silk
                        Road
                        > (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).
                        >
                        > Another essay states:
                        >
                        > "It survived in Southern China as the "Religion of the Venerable
                        Light"
                        > until the 17th century e.v."
                        >
                        > http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/religion.htm
                        >
                        > again, without footnoting a specific source (though a list is
                        appended at
                        > the bottom)
                        >
                        > I dug farther, and found this item on Manicheanism in China (the
                        Iranians
                        > seem, logically enough, given the tradition's origin there, very
                        eager to
                        > claim Manicheanism as theirs, and to document its history).
                        >
                        > It ends with this item (lots of good/interesting stuff before it):
                        >
                        > http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Manicheism_in_China.html
                        >
                        > The religion probably finally died out in the first decades of the
                        > Twentieth Century. The temple on Hua-paio Hill, termed by the local
                        > worshippers as a chao-an (ca'ao-an) i.e. a "thatched nunnery", is
                        still
                        > used as a Buddhist temple where Mani is worshipped as a Buddha with
                        > special powers. UNESCO made the site of the Manichean chao-an a
                        World
                        > Heritage Site in 1991 as a unique relic of an extinct world
                        religion.
                        >
                        > There is a Manichean temple in Quanzhou, China, and this guy
                        >
                        > http://www.amoymagic.com/Quanzhoupage.htm
                        >
                        > claims that "the Persian Manichean religion survives today only in
                        > Quanzhou", although it is not clear from other entries whether
                        actually
                        > means there are practicing Manicheans there... on the other hand,
                        as a
                        > resident foriegner, he appears as likely as any non-native to know
                        that.
                        >
                        > Other data:
                        >
                        > Mani and Manichean seems to be a common word in India, without any
                        direct
                        > relation to the religious tradition of that name.
                        >
                        > ... on balance, I can't find any evidence to support the conclusion
                        that
                        > there are Manicheans practicing today that have a direct line of
                        > historical descent. On the other hand, the religion was very
                        widespread,
                        > Central Asia is still very much "off the grid", so who knows what
                        may
                        > survive in pocketes as a local traditionnnn that no Westerner has
                        ever
                        > become aware enough of to investigate?
                        >
                        > Regards,
                        > Thomas Leavitt
                        >
                        > P.S. On a political note, here's an interesting rebuttal to claims
                        that
                        > Bush's worldview is "Manichean".
                        >
                        > http://hnn.us/articles/7202.htm
                        >
                        > This is kind of amusing... apparently, an author has listed Mani as
                        the
                        > world's 83rd most influental person in history (right ahead of
                        Lenin).
                        >
                      • pmcvflag
                        Hey Thomas, thanks for all the info. I am looking in to the Quanzhou angle to see whether this looks like perhaps a wide liguistic sweep (like the page
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 7 8:00 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hey Thomas, thanks for all the info. I am looking in to the Quanzhou
                          angle to see whether this looks like perhaps a wide liguistic sweep
                          (like the page concerning Bush's "Manichaeism" *lol*), or if there
                          is something more there. It would certainly be an important link,
                          and an interesting study.

                          PMCV

                          --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomas@t...>
                          wrote:
                          > Hmm... the Gnosis Archive has a page on Manicheanism that
                          references it
                          > surviving up to the present century in the "Orient".
                          >
                          > http://www.gnosis.org/library/manis.htmv
                          >
                          > Unfortunately, I can't recall, at this point, exactly where I
                          heard that
                          > either.
                          >
                          > It may not be correct... the Catholic Encyclopedia, which
                          unfortunately
                          > seems to be the primary source for most site's information about
                          > Manicheanism, says that:
                          >
                          > Within a generation after Mani's death his followers had settled
                          on the
                          > Malabar Coast and gave the name to Minigrama, ie "Settlement of
                          Mani".
                          >
                          > ... someone may have assumed that they continue to survive there.
                          >
                          > This article,
                          >
                          > Mani: Gnostic Prophet of Dualism
                          > http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/040712mani.html
                          >
                          > on a Mormon site of all things, says:
                          >
                          > says: "Manicheism was most successful among the nomads of Central
                          Asia,
                          > where it was declared the official religion by the king of the
                          Uigur Turks
                          > in 762, and survived until the sixteenth century."
                          >
                          > Unfortunately, without citing a source. However, the authors seem
                          to be
                          > reasonably authoritative.
                          >
                          > According to this essay, "During the Yuan (Mongol) period
                          Manichaeism
                          > experienced something of a revival in China, only to be outlawed
                          as a
                          > heretical Buddhist sect under the Ming legal code of the fourteenth
                          > century."
                          >
                          >
                          http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/exhibit/religion/manichaeis
                          m/essay.html
                          >
                          > the source cited here is (1) Richard Foltz, Religions of the Silk
                          Road
                          > (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999).
                          >
                          > Another essay states:
                          >
                          > "It survived in Southern China as the "Religion of the Venerable
                          Light"
                          > until the 17th century e.v."
                          >
                          > http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/religion.htm
                          >
                          > again, without footnoting a specific source (though a list is
                          appended at
                          > the bottom)
                          >
                          > I dug farther, and found this item on Manicheanism in China (the
                          Iranians
                          > seem, logically enough, given the tradition's origin there, very
                          eager to
                          > claim Manicheanism as theirs, and to document its history).
                          >
                          > It ends with this item (lots of good/interesting stuff before it):
                          >
                          > http://www.iranica.com/articles/sup/Manicheism_in_China.html
                          >
                          > The religion probably finally died out in the first decades of the
                          > Twentieth Century. The temple on Hua-paio Hill, termed by the local
                          > worshippers as a chao-an (ca'ao-an) i.e. a "thatched nunnery", is
                          still
                          > used as a Buddhist temple where Mani is worshipped as a Buddha with
                          > special powers. UNESCO made the site of the Manichean chao-an a
                          World
                          > Heritage Site in 1991 as a unique relic of an extinct world
                          religion.
                          >
                          > There is a Manichean temple in Quanzhou, China, and this guy
                          >
                          > http://www.amoymagic.com/Quanzhoupage.htm
                          >
                          > claims that "the Persian Manichean religion survives today only in
                          > Quanzhou", although it is not clear from other entries whether
                          actually
                          > means there are practicing Manicheans there... on the other hand,
                          as a
                          > resident foriegner, he appears as likely as any non-native to know
                          that.
                          >
                          > Other data:
                          >
                          > Mani and Manichean seems to be a common word in India, without any
                          direct
                          > relation to the religious tradition of that name.
                          >
                          > ... on balance, I can't find any evidence to support the
                          conclusion that
                          > there are Manicheans practicing today that have a direct line of
                          > historical descent. On the other hand, the religion was very
                          widespread,
                          > Central Asia is still very much "off the grid", so who knows what
                          may
                          > survive in pocketes as a local traditionnnn that no Westerner has
                          ever
                          > become aware enough of to investigate?
                          >
                          > Regards,
                          > Thomas Leavitt
                          >
                          > P.S. On a political note, here's an interesting rebuttal to claims
                          that
                          > Bush's worldview is "Manichean".
                          >
                          > http://hnn.us/articles/7202.htm
                          >
                          > This is kind of amusing... apparently, an author has listed Mani
                          as the
                          > world's 83rd most influental person in history (right ahead of
                          Lenin).
                          >
                          > > Hello pmcvflag
                          > >
                          > > On 03/06/05, you wrote:
                          > >
                          > >>
                          > >>
                          > >> Hey Mike
                          > >>
                          > >> Well, I was aware that Malabar was one of the later outposts,
                          but last
                          > >> I heard it was still around the 1500s when they were last
                          > >> spotted there. If you are talking about some new discovery that
                          I had
                          > >> not heard about, I am unable to find anything about it.... and
                          no one
                          > >> else I know seems to have heard about it either. Can you give
                          us some
                          > >> more info? It would certainly be extremely interesting.
                          > >
                          > > I wish I could, but some guy at church was talking about a
                          journal
                          > > article he had read, and I was not part of the conversation. My
                          > > older son Tom may know something too. I'll cc: him in on this,
                          just in
                          > > case. Not being into Manacheanism that much, I did not retain
                          > > much of what I heard or read about it.
                          > >
                          > > Regards
                          > > --
                          > > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.