mountainman

Yes, of course the satire was directed against the Emperor Cult.
But more that it had a precise starting point of c.325 CE.
Political reaction to the decisions of Nicaea.

Lets say christians in 325 CE were 5% of the empire.
The reaction was from the 95% Hellenistic (pagan) population.

The literary reaction was immediately made by
academic authors of anti-apostolic fictions.

We look at this literary reaction today.
We have the texts in front of our eyes.
We call these texts "The Hidden Books".
The New testament Apocryphal books.
The NT non canonical books.
The NT heretical books.
They were listed on Constantine's and Eusebius' Librorum Prohibitorum.

mountainman

Totally an ineffectual last-ditch effort of the rapidly
disappearing remnants of the ancient Hellenistic civilisation
and its ancient traditions associated with the temple,
shrine and gymnasia networks --- and the preservation
of its own literature previously centered around the
city of Alexandria, and its famous library.

These same preservers buried the Nag Hammadi Codices.
The NHC is a political time capsule from perhaps 348 CE.


Christianity as the emperor cult opened new opportunities.
A new structural netwok of modern basilica architecture
was being tenured by tax-exempt "Custodian Class" (to
use the Platonic term) in this instance called "Christian bishops".
The history of the 4th century demonstrates the rise of this class
and the rise of the state christian religion phenomenom.

The only problem were the satirical heretics. They got written out of history.
Until the Hellenistic academic and satirical "Hidden Books" started to surface.
Direct from the ground - in Coptic and Syriac.

We need to ask very carefully the question
"In the year c.324/325 CE who were the "Christians"
and who were those representing the Hellenistic traditions?"



Fourth Century Ancient History has Two Sides!

We have the "Christian story of History 324/325 CE onwards.
What is the "Hellenistic story of History 324/325 CE onwards?

History has two sides, but Eusebius and his continuators would
have us believe that there is only one side to the history of
the fourth century. My advice FWIW, is to momentarily ignore
the NT Canon, and to examine the "Other Side of the Coin".

mountainman

"Let's all look on the Bright Side of Life!!!!"
I thought "Life of Brian" was an epic satire.

If someone were to have performed this in the 4th century
they would have been the subject of Imperial Damnation.

After the 4th century, the church had its own authority.
If the Librorum Prohibitorum were still running then
"The Life of Brian" would have a reserved place.

The British are not as insular as they might like to think.
After all the length of the coast of Britain became a famous fractal.
We are dealing with common humor.
Humor is a reaction to authority.
Supreme authority cannot tolerate humor being directed against itself.

It is only in recent generations that people can begin
to laugh out loud about the stories which for centuries
were bing held up as the Holy Writ of an Imperial God.

Soon, people will understand that the NT apocryha were
designed as very popular subversive counter-stories to
make the Hellenistic populace of the fourth century laugh
out loud about what for them was a very real political
change which was accompanied by fascism, persecution
and intolerance from the "new christian regime".

Pagan priests authored the hidden books.
They were largely from the Platonic/Pythagorean schools.
Ex-temple priests, heads of this and that.
The temples no longer stood.
Or if they did, soldiers guaranteed no entry.
The prohibition of Hellenistic tradition was enforced.
With effect from the year 324 CE.

These people examined the NT canon.
They did not like the story of God being crucified.
They thought of God like Plotinus as "The ONE".
Or perhaps something like "an inexpressible essence".
(See Plotinus' Holy Trinity for example).

They rejected the divinity of Jesus.
They did not believe in Jesus.
They invented wild stories about Jesus.
Oh my God !!! They did that !!!

They wrote better stories of the "New Testament".
Thus we have ... these "Hidden Books".

Toto

I leave you to your fantasies. Perhaps you should write a novel - The Pachomius Code.

mountainman

In The Gnostic Discoveries (or via: amazon.co.uk), Marvin Meyer comments that the success
of "The Da Vinci Code" was based on the popularisation of perhaps
one of these same elements of satire. In this instance ...

The author of gMary has it that
Peter was peeved about Mary.
The satirist author expect us
to laugh out loud! Ha ha ha!

But its the tip of a gigantic iceberg.
Every one of these "Hidden Books"
contains the same tell-tale signals
quite resonant with "Julian's invectives".

The Pachomius Code is a good idea.
It describes the pathway of refuge.
Like the Dalai Lama fleeing Alexandria.
Just before Constantine turned the lights out.

To paraphrase the Beach Boys
"The desert was the place to go."

In the thick of things, behind the scenes however,
the pivotal character and perhaps author of NT Ap's
is that foul-mouthed Porphyrian known by the
name of Arius of Alexandria -- until even the name
and memory of the name was the subject of an
imperial Constantinian decree “Damnatio memoriae”.

“Damnatio memoriae”.

The Latin phrase literally meaning "damnation of memory",
in the sense of removed from the remembrance. It was a form
of dishonor that could be passed by the Roman Senate upon traitors
or others who brought discredit to the Roman State.

CHRISTIAN GLASSES ON/OFF TOGGLE:
Was Arius a rabbit or a duck?



Now of course this brings us to that horrible controversy
over this pesky Arius and whether he is to be regarded as
a christian bishop or a pagan priest. We all know of course
that Arius must be defined as a christian bishop. Or do we?

Is this a Porphyrian rabbit or a Porphyrian duck?

Arius is a Christian! Its the duck!
Arius is a Hellenistic academic priest! Its the rabbit!
Which one makes more sense of the evidence?

As late as 341 the bishops of the Dedication Council at Antioch declared:

"We are not followers of Arius;
for how could we, who are bishops,
be disciples of a priest?"

Clivedurdle

There are several issues that need considering together. They may not all be in direct cause effect relationships, and are probably very indirect relationships.

The key is as I see it the Emperor Cult. An oriental cult was probably used - I think there is strong evidence for Seneca - as the launch pad for a satirical attack on the Emperor who at the time was definitely causing him problems.

There probably needs to be more research into Roman Jewish relationships in the sixties through to the 150's - what caused things to blow up?

I also think there are real comparisons that Caesar's Messiah has pointed out.

Some probably political writing has got transformed into religious writing.

Into the marinade comes Paul - I do wonder if Lord Jesus Christ is actually meaningless - there are no capital letters in Greek - and maybe just by coincidence someone used the same phrase in other political writings and some other outliers - Hebrews and Revelation.

The gnostic stuff is kinda in the air - part of how our mind's work, and goes back way before Plato. Bits of Paul are definitely gnostic.

The hippy versus the soldier mentalities.

So when we see phrases like why do you ask me, we need to be very aware of the context - who has power, who is thinking what.

We are looking at many many perspectives over several centuries. And it isn't pagan over here xian over there - it is continual co-evolution of many different groupings - within a very strong Greco-Persian - Punic context

And why isn't Lucian discussing an oriental cult evidence of the existence of xianity then?

mountainman

When did the Pontifex Maximus cease to sponsor
the Hellenic Asclepius (or relatives) on their coins?

When did the Pontifiex Maximus actively order the
utter destruction to the foundations of ancient
centuries old highly reverred temples to the traditional
gods of the Hellenistic Milieu of divinities?

When did the Pontifex Maximus prohibit the practice
of all other religions but the One Unknown Good Good
Chrestos maybe Christos.

When do the Roman legal codes start to describe the
appearance of political fascism in the empire?


A massively unified barbarian army (ex-Costantius' Germanic chieftains) and navy (ex-pirates) was assembled and prepared by Constantine after his father gave up the ghost. Rome was Constantine's launch pad on the very ancient and very rich Eastern Roman empire. The jewel in the lotus of all the eastern riches was the city of Alexandria. Academic Hellenism had been active in an unbroken tradition since Pythagoras and Plato until the beginning of the fourth century. The Gnostics were simply the Hellenes.


See "The Second Sophistic".



Military related comparisons involving battles.



Start with the Oath to Constantine
otherwise known when one dons "Christian Glasses" (CG)
as the Nicaean Creed.


Dont you mean the marinade of Paul and Aesop?
Dont forget the fable of the baptised lion.


"In whom we live and move and have our being"?
The gnostics are the Hellenic "guardians" of Plato and Pythagoras ...


The fourth century hippies used to hang out within the temple cults.
There were thousands of such cults since Rome had brought slaves
of all nations to its empire for centuries. If one takes off the CG then the "pagan" temples prior to Constantine's supremacy were these Hellenistic cult network. One of the larger names was Ascelpius, son of Apollo, son of Zeus, and the archaeology for Ascelpian temples in the empire is abundant.


The historical contextual WHEN is also paramount.
Things change from moment to moment, century to century.
You will have noticed by now that I am examining the ground
of the early and late fourth century, at which time, as we are
all very much aware, the authorship of Historia Ecclesiastica
was known to have been undertaken. Also, at which time, the
Christian came out of the "Underground Green Closet" as it were,
and the books of the new testament were widely publicised
by imperial decree of Constantine.

The WHEN of this letter from Peter is C14 dated 348 CE
plus or minus 60 years. The satire fits the epoch. Julian
writing a decade later satires Constantine and Jesus together.




The events of 324/325 CE culminating in the military
related councils of Antioch and Nicaea represent a
boundary event in the once ancient Hellenistic civilisation.

When we wear CG we look at the Christians.
Who were the Greeks? Umm... just more gentiles.

When were wear the CG the demise of Hellenism is inconsequential.
The CG permit us to see the rise of the Christians.


Pagan is a late fourth century term used by Christians.
Who were Porphyry and Plotinus?


Have you read The Philopatris? The evidence
clearly suggests that the books of Lucian were
commandeered and forged.

Forgery was abundant in the fourth century.
Constantine was a gangster and a robber.
His rule was decribed as "NERONIAN".
He was a fascist dictator and despot.
He was the first to publish the "Christian Bible".


But Constantine had no control over the heretics!

The heretics were not christian.
The heretics were anti-Constantinian.
The heretics were clever Hellenistic academics.
The heretics wrote additional stories about Jesus.
The heretics wrote new things about Jesus.
And these stories were being read in schools.
There was obviously literary resistance to the
authority of Constantine's New testament
at the grass roots level of the old (Hellenistic)
administration

And Constantine and his orthodoxy were sorely displeased.
So he wrote letters to everyone, with explicit instructions
on how he wanted the situation handled ...

mountainman

The humour you openly display is natural given the context
and the history of this discussion forum however are there
any authors writing books in which the apostles are so depicted?
I dont know of any like this. Which ones?. More importantly, we have seen
many threads concerning the presence (if any) of humour in
the new testament and the results indicate close to zero.

I disagree with the argument that the gospels intentionally
present the apostles as "clueless" in any satirical sense.
I think that this argument has been derived from centuries
of scholarship trying to understand the mentality of the
apostles via the words available in the canon.

My argument is that, unlike the canon, the apocrypha have
a distinctive element of satire - some of it I think purposefully
humorous - directed against the apostles and their "ministry".
The satire in these NT apocrypha is not present in the NT canon.
However it is present in the writings of Emperor Julian.
To understand the satire we must understand the political
arena of the epoch between 325 and Nag Hammadi 348 CE.

"The highways were covered with galloping bishops".
The long standing academy of Plato was being pulled down.
A new class of Plato's "Guardian Class" were being installed.
The old order of pagan priests was falling away.
A new order of Christian bishops was established.

I am arguing that the NT apocryphal books were authored
at this momentous epoch in the the ancient Graeco-Roman
world by the old "Plato's Guardian Class" academics. Such
a political context provides an explanation for the invective
of written satire. And more to the point, it provides a very
accurate explanation of not only the reaction against these
"books of satire" by the orthodox during, and after that
epoch, it provides a foundational political context for the
entire Arian controversy.