Toto

Yes, I have studied ancient history, and I will withdraw from this conversation unless someone else wants to contribute.

mountainman

Thanks for the constructive ideas AA.

I have created a page for the
Fourth Century Parody that is known as the "Acts of Philip".


At this analysis I present the text in groupings
as I have done to-date in this thread an explicate
the humour of the parodist.

At the end of this I address your points,
as you have listed them above ...

The characteristics of parody are these:

1) It is meant to ridicule an original.
2) The ridiculous points of the original are exaggerated.
3) the persuasive points of the original lack content.
4) Every passage of the parody is meant to ridicule original, without exception.
5) It is supposed to be subjectively funny.

Does the Acts of Phillip meet such a list of criteria?

We must first understand the times of the Fourth Century. This is the historical context of the texts, and of the parody. The thing being parodied here is the new Christian state religion -- and the texts of the Constantine Bible c.331 CE. Notably, the Acts of the Apostles.

1) The ridicule an original - texts of the "canonical" New Testament.

Philip was supposed to be one of the twelve christian apostles. The Acts of Philip are supposed to be religiously inspired writings of a religiously inspired spiritual apostle, but the Syriac narrative discloses an inept, unintelligent and illiterate robot who defeats armies by crossing himself.

2) The ridiculous points of the original are exaggerated.

Various ineptitudes of the christian apostle are ceaselessly hammered. The ineptitude of the relationship between Philip and Jesus. The ineptitude of admitting to be illiterate in both Greek and Latin. The ineptitude of praying for wind to the wrong god in the wrong direction. etc, etc, etc

3) the persuasive points of the original lack content.

The Christian ministry is hown to be war-like and stupid. The apostle is depicted as an annoying unintelligent robot. The New Testament texts are a fabricated fiction without authenticity. "The NT is a fiction of men composed by wickedness" - Julian 362 CE. There were no persuasive points in the NT. It was a monstrous tale.

4) Every passage of the parody is meant to ridicule original, without exception.

I have attempted to indicate that this is so, above,
with comments explicating the humour.

5) It is supposed to be subjectively funny.

The plot is a ridiculous story. The admission that Philip cannot speak Latin or Greek needs to be understood in the context of the fourth century. These were the two main languages of the Roman empire. Not to speak either of these was an admission of illiteracy, especially the Greek.

I have made comments against a detailed analysis of the text above. These comments indicate that a humourous interpretation can be consistently perceived in this text. At many times the humour is satire, such as the closing lines, where the author discloses that people were converted to christianity because of aggressive and blood-thirsty revenge killings by the christian angel.

Ancient historians generally agree that Constantine ordered the executions of the leading priests of some of the healing temples to Asclepius, prior to his "council" of Nicaea, at the time of his military supremacy of the east and west Roman empire. When he published the Constantine Bible, he had enjoyed absolute power for many years.

It is our thesis that this parody was written by people who had been dispossessed of their tradition by Constantine, or perhaps after - by his son Constantius - during the period 325 to 360 CE. This dating calibrates exactly with the Nag Hammadi texts, in which I have also determined there to be the signature of parody in the text TAOPATTA (The Acts Of Peter And The Twelve Apostles).


I look forward to any comments.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Continuing on then, with the Syriac author
c.348 CE (+/- 60 years) ....


Philip might have been thinking he was too light on Ananias, in accepting a history of confession of Jesus only up until the time of Susanna. He wanted to make sure he understood that Ananias was converted.

Wow!

So a water-pipe was created between the synagogue and the ocean, and a dolphin brings Anianias' body to Philip.
The people were worried when they saw it. Philip and the aggressive christian angel had been beating up Anianas on the boat because of his sotto voiced blashemy. He assured them he would find the real murderers.

Why does Philip hang around a day and do nothing?
The next day is Philip annoying the governor?
Is Philip annoying the Jews?
Is Philip annoying Ananias?

Is Philip annoying the governor?
Is Philip annoying the Jews?
Is Philip annoying Ananias?

Is Philip annoying the governor?
Is Philip annoying the Jews?
Is Philip annoying Ananias?
As if the Jews would opt for Death
from Caesar and Caesar's God!

What a joke!
What drama and dialog!

As if they would swear to an
inept illiterate and stupid person
such as Philip.

Another command by Philip!

Philip is about to resurrect Ananias
via the call of a sick ox from his place
in a synogogue where he was buried
after being kicked by a priest.


How annoying that would have been
for the owner of the ox.


Is it safe to be dragged along the streets
of a city by a sick ox under command of
the power of the christian apostle Philip?

Where is the OH&S standards?

mountainman

Continuing through the Syriac text
to the end of it .....



Prostration to christian dignatories is acceptable in parody.
The first Christian dignatory was Constantine.
Everyone prostrated to Constantine.
See the multiple prostrations to Lithargoel in
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, NHC 6.1.

Philip asks another question.
A sick ox brings the dead Jew to the stand.
The dead Jew implicates the Jews in his murder.
Philip remembers his commands.
Philip is an inept, illiterate bot.



Philip distinguishes between the Lord
and the master of the sick speaking ox.


The Jews were silenced

Hence the importance of apologetics.

Asking pardon is an important thing.
If one does not ask pardon, one is cast out.
How quaint a custom is this?

But Philip had no control
over the christian angel.



People were impressed with the
aggressive Christian angel's slaying
of forty priests.

On the basis of this aggressive blood-thirsty
revenge killings by the christian angel,
people were converted to christianity.

None of this is related to religion.
It is all explained politically ...
Constantine bullied the populace into it.
He used his troops to subjugate the empire.
His sons followed the same initiative.

Christianity started in the court of the emperor.
The Christian angels were military agents.
They killed and oppressed the (non-christian) priests.


CONCLUSION

WHOEVER IT WAS that wrote the Syriac Acts of Philip
IMO was certainly NOT a christian, since the anti-christian
polemic of the text is clear and consistent.


The characteristics of parody are these:

1) It is meant to ridicule an original.
2) The ridiculous points of the original are exaggerated.
3) the persuasive points of the original lack content.
4) Every passage of the parody is meant to ridicule original, without exception.
5) It is supposed to be subjectively funny.

Does the Acts of Phillip meet such a list of criteria?
We must first understand the times of the Fourth Century. This is the historical context of the texts, and of the parody. The thing being parodied here is the new Christian state religion -- and the texts of the Constantine Bible c.331 CE. Notably, the Acts of the Apostles.

1) The ridicule an original - texts of the "canonical" New Testament.

Philip was supposed to be one of the twelve christian apostles. The Acts of Philip are supposed to be religiously inspired writings of a religiously inspired spiritual apostle, but the Syriac narrative discloses an inept, unintelligent and illiterate robot who defeats armies by crossing himself.

2) The ridiculous points of the original are exaggerated.

Various ineptitudes of the christian apostle are ceaselessly hammered. The ineptitude of the relationship between Philip and Jesus. The ineptitude of admitting to be illiterate in both Greek and Latin. The ineptitude of praying for wind to the wrong god in the wrong direction. etc, etc, etc

3) the persuasive points of the original lack content.

The Christian ministry is hown to be war-like and stupid. The apostle is depicted as an annoying unintelligent robot. The New Testament texts are a fabricated fiction without authenticity. "The NT is a fiction of men composed by wickedness" - Julian 362 CE. There were no persuasive points in the NT. It was a monstrous tale.

4) Every passage of the parody is meant to ridicule original, without exception.

I have attempted to indicate that this is so, above.

5) It is supposed to be subjectively funny.

The plot is a ridiculous story. The admission that Philip cannot speak Latin or Greek needs to be understood in the context of the fourth century. These were the two main languages of the Roman empire. Not to speak either of these was an admission of illiteracy, especially the Greek.

I have made comments against a detailed analysis of the text above. These comments indicate that a humourous interpretation can be consistently perceived in this text. At many times the humour is satire, such as the closing lines, where the author discloses that people were converted to christianity because of aggressive and blood-thirsty revenge killings by the christian angel.

Ancient historians generally agree that Constantine ordered the executions of the leading priests of some of the healing temples to Asclepius, prior to his "council" of Nicaea, at the time of his military supremacy of the east and west Roman empire. When he published the Constantine Bible, he had enjoyed absolute power for many years.

It is our thesis that this parody was written by people who had been dispossessed of their tradition by Constantine, or perhaps after - by his son Constantius - during the period 325 to 360 CE. This dating calibrates exactly with the Nag Hammadi texts, in which I have also determined there to be the signature of parody in the text TAOPATTA (The Acts Of Peter And The Twelve Apostles).


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Casper

Well Pete, I can "see" your justification as parody, but I have some problems eating the whole hog...

Could the joke be not on jews or christians in general, but on some minor sect that revered Phillip? I'm thinking along the lines of Monty Python's Life of Brian, but that can go multiple ways. Or maybe a period-related piece, Lucian's Perigrinus.

As far as seeing the inconsistencies as intended parody, could they just be inconsistencies of no import? On that note I'm imagining the creation account inconsistencies in the OT, which I don't believe anyone would label as parody, yet they remain in all their glory for forums like this to rehash.

Not critical of the idea, just not following it clearly.

mountainman

Hi Casper,

Thanks for your questions.

Pull up a chair and allow me to set the table
for the whole hog ...

At a superficial level we are dealing in documents.
Let's for the moment ignore the archaeology, etc.

The documents related to the field of BC&H can be
arranged into two stacks:
Stack One - the New Testament corpus.
Stack Two - the Old Testament (Hebrew Texts) corpus.

For the moment, my interest is stack one.
I remove Stack Two from the table.

When we look at Stack One: NT corpus we can
reasonably classify it into a series of sub-
stacks as follows:

1) Canonical NT Literature
2) Non-Canonical NT Literature
3) Pre-Nicene (Eusebian related) literature.

FOr the purposes of this thread I am going to
ignore 3 and simply retain these two stacks on
the table to look at:

Stack 1 - NT Canonical
Stack 2 - NT Non Canonical

Those who have researched the constituents of these
two stacks will have a far more detailed appreciation
of these two sets than the novice enquirer, so I will
attempt a simplification.

Stack 1 - NT Canonical
These documents are sources of today's New Testament.
You know... Matthew, Mark, Luke and J., etc

In this stack the apostles are presented as
certainly above average individuals.
The stories glorify their acts and words etc etc etc
We are to be inspired and believe, etc, etc, etc.
Further, these stories possessed Divine Authority
which is reported by Eusebius, below ...


Chronology

There is no general agreement between scholars as to
the dates of the original documents in this stack.
Respected scholars argue between a first and second
century authorship for most of this stack.

My opinion is that stack 1 was authored c.325 CE.



Stack 2 - NT Non Canonical

This thread concerns my recent examination of this stack.
So far, please understand that I have purposefully
restricted myself to the review of six separate
"Acts of the Apostles", so the following of course,
is at this stage qualified on this basis.

(ie: about the "Acts" ...)


In this stack the apostles (IMO) are presented as
certainly below average individuals.
The stories glorify the ineptitude of their acts and words etc etc etc
We are to laugh out loud at these comical presentations.
These documents may have been the basis of performance,
recitation, etc.

There is no general agreement between scholars as to
the dates of the original documents in stack 2.
Arguments range between the first, second, third,
and in some cases, fourth century.


My opinion is that stack 2 was authored after c.325 CE,
as an instant opposition to Constantine's polemical
authority.

In this thread I have attempted to show that the Acts of Philip
is a parody. It is not alone. I have identified another 5
of the acts and have presented similar explications to that
above. So no one single apostle is being targetted.

The entire bunch - according to Constantine's story - were
being selected to be the subject of rediculous stories.
The anti-christian polemic at that time arose due to
the political nature of Constantine's rule, the history
of which has not yet been told IMO, as it happened.


At any rate, Constantine and Eusebius then had the problems
with the appearance of all these stange "Acts" and "Gospels".
Here is how Eusebius tells us about the character of some
of the documents found in stack two ...



The key thing to understand here is that I am presenting a
complete chronology of the entire NT stack of documents
in which the non canonical texts were written after 325CE
in direct polemic and political opposition to the big and
lavish Constantine Bible -- or its forebears at Nicaea.


These documents were immediately classified by the Constantinian
Orthodoxy State to be heretical. They would not allow anyone
to parody the "above average Apostles". These documents, and
their authors were hunted down. Arius was a wanted man.

Hunts for heretical writings highlight the next few centuries
and the entire raging non-linear chaos of the controversy
named after this man Arius, whom I would say denied the historicity
of Jesus Christ by saying in simple dogmatic terms:

* There was time when He was not.
* Before He was born He was not.
* He was made out of nothing existing.
* He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
* He is subject to alteration or change.

I conjecture that Arius is the author of TAOPATTA for example, so that in going out on this limb, I can name a player
in the political environment of the time of Nicaea 325 CE
and its aftermath.

Note that I understand Arius to have been a priest of
perhaps Asclepius, Apollo, or a related cult, to have
been an ascetic in his entire character, and certainly
not to have been a christian, as the Authodox history
would lead us to believe.

My explanation of the two stacks of documents on the table
is thus purely political. Constantine fabricated stack 1,
the NT canonical. A host of "resistance writers" from
the ancient Hellenic traditions (Pythagoras, Plato, etc)
then - chronologically - then authored anti-christian
polemic which I claim is to be perceived in these (at least)
six non-canonical acts indexed here.

I hope I have explained my position.
If you have any questions, please ask.

Best wishes,'


Pete Brown




erratta ...

mountainman

Here is the concluding paragraph from the Syriac
text "The Acts of Philip" in which a christian angel
is presented as slaying Jewish priests and as a
result, achieves worship and "christian confession".

Three thousand Gentiles
and fifteen hundred Jews believed;
the unbelievers left the city,
and before sunset an angel
slew forty of the Jewish priests
for shedding innocent blood:
and all who saw it
confessed and worshipped.

Surely there is something wrong in Christendom
at the time the author of this text penned these
totally irreligious verses?

Can anyone explain why this "christian angel" is
depicted as such a despotic and demonic power
here in this "Christian Acts".

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Darklighter

I'm curious... when about was that written?

mountainman

WIKI says:

The Greek Acts of Philip (Acta Philippi) is an unorthodox episodic apocryphal mid-to late fourth-century [1] narrative, originally in fifteen separate acta,[2] that gives an accounting of the miraculous acts performed by the Apostle Philip, with overtones of the genre of Romance.

[1] ^ Late fourth century is François Bovon's dating (Bovon, "Actes de Philippe") and Amsler's; mid-fourth century in an encratite circle is De Santeros Otero's dating;

which makes sense to me because whoever the author
was he was taking massive pot shots from the knoll at
the integrity of the christian ministry. The fourth
century christian ministry was nothing but a top-down
emperor cult which went out-of-control until it became
supreme in the empire.

It is a parody IMO.

Written by a non christian
academic Hellenic priest.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

overtones of the genre of Romance.

Many commentators on these non canonical stories
mention the term Romance as a genre.

What could they possibly mean?
Are the Acts of the Apostles a romance story?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown