mountainman

I am suggesting we check to see if it
can be described as a pagan satire.

The ending "And they went by a power of Jesus, in peace."
suggests that they did not travel under their own power, but
borrowed a power from the state monotheistic Jesus, and set
forth into the brave new christendom.

If you can easily accept that the Gospels are knowable
as the Gospels of the Boneheads then why is it so difficult for
you to consider that non christian authors may have satired
the entire religion and its canon at that precise epoch when
the religion and its canon were first widely published in the
Roman empire (ie: c.325 CE).

Toto

If you want a satire, read Lucian's Peregrinus. This is no satire.

It's not difficult to consider. There is just no evidence to support the claim, and it doesn't make any sense.

arnoldo

Arguments are ok, however archaelogy is better.

On the Reliability of the Old Testament: Kitchen (or via: amazon.co.uk)

arnoldo

On the other hand, there is evidence that non-christians were satirizing the christians during this general time frame. . .

mountainman

April DeConick

Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently.
This is found, for instance, in the Testimony of Truth,
the Apocalypse of Peter, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth,
the Acts of John, which take aim at apostolic Christians
and their practices and beliefs.

The Sethians were particularly good at making fun of
traditional biblical beliefs, especially when it came
to the Genesis story and their use of traditional verses like
"Besides me there is no god" by applying it to Ialdabaoth
and implying that this is the god that other Christians
ignorantly are worshiping.

This "Why are you asking Me?" in The Letter of Peter which he sent to Philip (NHC 8.2) is by no means isolated to this text. The invective is arguably discernible in all of the new testament apocryphal acts and gospels. Some clever pagan (ie: a non christian) in the fourth century has done a royal number on the One True Canon, Clark Jesos Kent, and the Twemendous Twelve Boneheads. This one simple conjecture fits the evidence, and explains why this non canonical literature output attracted the wrath of Constantine and all christians who followed his regime in the 4th century.

The new testament non canonical literature corpus is known as the apocrypha because these books had to be hidden. Lists and compendiums of these anti-apostolic books were complied commencing with that provided in the Ecclesiatistcal History of Eusebius. The church councils of the 4th century concerned themselves with the followers of the heretical books, and the practice of not reading the uncanonical books.

We need to see the political and social context of the fourth century without wearing any "Christian Glasses". It can be simplified as follows:

Stages of Implementation of State Christianity

1) Constantine embraces a low-profile cult called "Christianity".
2) Constantine declares this cult as his preferred Pontifex-Maximus cult.
3) Constantine becomes supreme and decrees Christianity the state mono-thing.
4) The huge melting pot of Hellenistic religious cults finds itself in serious trouble. Constantine starts destroying the temples and shrines. At Antioch
he tortures key people in the city to confess against "Hellenism".
5) The New Testament canon is declared the Holy Writ of the Roman Empire 325 CE.
6) Shortly thereafter the New Testament non canonical corpus (ie: all the "Hidden Books" = The NT Apocrypha) were authored.
7) The preservation of the "Hidden Books" mandated Coptic and Syriac, out of the probing eyes of the state monotheistic christian regime of Constantine and his successors.
8) The "Hit List" of Hidden Books is present in all centuries after the fourth.
There is a direct ancient historical link between the fourth century list compiled by Eusebius and the Index Librorum Prohibitorum which operated continuously until 1966.

The author of the NT apocryphal books (including at least some of the Nag Hammadi Codices) has a consistent cleverly engineered satire running against the authority of the NT Canon.

OPEN CHALLENGE

I openly challenge anyone to name a NT apocryphal act or gospel
in which there is not present - in the text - when we are able to
take off our "Christian Glasses" - evidence of satire, or of some
form of humor directed against the Bountiful Boneheads and their
Slave Master, or Master-Sorceror, Mr. JEE SAYS.

Exceptions: Lists of sayings (eg: gThomas) are not included.
I am dealing with all the Hellenistic narrative accounts called
by the names of gospels and/or acts. Any of the following.

Consistence evidence of satire, etc in ......

The Act of Peter
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Acts of Andrew and John (*H)
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew (*H)
The Acts of Barnabas
The Acts of Bartholomew
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Luke
The Acts of Mark
The Acts of Matthew
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Philip
The Acts of Pilate
The Acts of Timothy
The Acts of Titus
The Death of Pilate
The History of John
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Acts of Andrew (*H)
The Acts of John (*H)
The Acts of Paul (*R)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Thomas
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles <<<==== 11, 12 or 13 BoneHeads?
The Letter of Peter to Philip
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The Gospel of James (Infancy)
The Gospel of Judas
The Gospel of Mary [Magdalene]
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of Philip
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas [Greek Text A]
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Treatise on the Resurrection
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Philip

Toto

Your quote is from mountainman's site, and it quotes the Emperor Julian, who is not in this "general time frame."

bacht

Yep. The Jews didn't get it but the Gentiles did:

And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

Mark 15.39

Toto

DeConick and others see the satire as directed by one faction of Christianity against another faction, not as pagan satire of Christianity.

The satirists were not worshippers of Zeus or another pagan god. They had a different view of Jesus, but they considered themselves Christians and came fairly close to winning dominance in the early Church. They ended up losing, but they are still part of the Christian tradition.

Clivedurdle

Paul - "Glass darkly" (Pagels - Gnostic Paul and myriad more examples).

Are you arguing the gnostic bits of the Epistles of Paul are satire?

Or are you ignoring them for some reason to create a too tidy theory?

Clivedurdle

And if there is satire, might it be against the Emperor cult?

I thought the whole point of satire was to critique the rich and powerful, not some "oriental cult." The cult may be a useful foil upon which to base the attacks....