|
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
the Docetic Acts of John (written by Arius of Alexandria?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huon
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
My thesis has it that the author of this NT apochryphal text was not Eusebius but was a satirist of the canon, and perhaps Arius of Alexandria. You appear to be compelled to call this "twaddle", and my response is to ask you whether you think that the twaddle is actually satire, written by an author who was a non-christian satirist of the authority of the canon. Is this a literary attempt to make a joke, to make fun of, to ridicule, to jest at, to hold up for laughter, etc the virgin birth of Clark Jesus Kent at Krypton, a small suburb of Nazaron, in the outer Vega cluster?
|
This is an optimistic thesis. One could also consider the author of Acts of John as a sort of moron writing seriously, with his own bunch of silly theories about JC. (The "official" theories of the canon are not really better, IMO, of course).
The jewish story about JC son of Panthera is clearly a satire. And the jewish anti-christian origin of the story is clearly identified.
It is not the same situation with Acts of John. |
Dear Huon,
The Acts of John is docetic, is heavily gnostic in places, has the apostle converting pagans to christianity after destroying their temples (just like Constantine), and has Jesus appearing in weird guises. The author of this narrative has the apostle John admit that he never once saw Jesus leave a footprint on the planet. What is going on? This is a greek academic having a go at the idea of the Apostle John. This is a greek academic satirising the idea of the Apostle John. Did any of the canonical apostles destroy pagan temples?
This was a heretical and forbidden text written by the son of the devil himself, according to various early christian sources.
Here is a summary from here
Quote:
Acts of John
István Czachesz:
Recent opinions about the date and provenance of the Acts of John largely differ. Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, pp. 692ff and Histoire, p. 4, suggest the second half of the second century in Egypt; Schäferdiek, "Acts of John", pp. 166f, the first half of the third century in East Syria; Lalleman, Acts of John, pp. 244-70, the second quarter of the second century in Asia Minor. Recently Bremmer,"Apocryphal Acts" (Printed Resources ), pp. 158f, confirmed Asia Minor as a place of origin and suggested c. 150 as the date of writing (pp. 153f). Cf. Czachesz, Apostolic Commission, pp. 117f. Chapters 94-102 and 109 probably were added later, cf. Junod and Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, pp. 700ff and Histoire , p. 4; Lalleman, Acts of John, pp. 59-66 and 266ff; Luttikhuizen, "Gnostic Reading". For the reconstruction of the text, see Czachesz, Apostolic Commission, pp. 91-96.
Geoff Trowbridge:
The Acts of John (c. 150-200 C.E.) were once believed to be the earliest of the Apocryphal Acts, though much of its gnostic idealogy is not found in the other acts (except Thomas). Many scholars believe the blatantly gnostic and/or docetic chapters (94-102 and 109) are a later addition. The original author is traditionally believed to be Leucius Charinus, a companion of John who was later associated with the Manichaeans. The book tells of John's two journeys to Ephesus, during which he performs several ressurections and converts the followers of Artemis after destroying their temple. The book also includes the "Hymn of Christ," used in a modern musical work by Gustav Holst. Like the Johannine gospel, the Christology of the Acts shows some Hellenistic influence. Because the Acts of John were condemned particularly early in their history, all the surviving texts are fragmentary. The earliest manuscripts are Greek, though many Latin texts show later developments and may have suffered from Catholic attempts to purge the unorthodox passages.
Glenn Davis:
Acts of John (Ephesus, 150-200 CE) purports to give an eyewitness account of the missionary work of the apostle John in and around Ephesus; it may therefore be of Ephesian provenance. It probably dates to the 2nd half of the 2nd century. Although no complete text is extant, we have considerable portions in Greek and in Latin. The Stichometry of Nicephorus gives its length as 2500 lines, the same number as for the Gospel according to Matthew. An English translation is in [Schneemelcher] v. 2 pp. 172-212. The author of the Acts of John, said to be Leucius, a real or fictitious companion of the apostle John, narrates his miracles, sermons, and death. The sermons display unmistakable Docetic tendencies, especially in the description of Jesus and the immateriality of his body:
.... Sometimes when I meant to touch him [Jesus], I met with a material and solid body; but at other times when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, as if it did not exist at all ... And I often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth), and I never saw it. (§ 93)
The author also relates that Jesus was constantly changing shape, appearing sometimes as a small boy, sometimes as a beautiful man; sometimes bald-headed with a long beard, sometimes as a youth with a pubescent beard (§ 87-89). The book includes a long hymn (§ 94-96), which no doubt was once used as a liturgical song (with response) in some Johannine communities. Before he goes to die, Jesus gathers his apostles in a circle, and, while holding one another's hands as they circle in a dance around him, he sings a hymn to the Father. The terminology of the hymn is closely related to that of the Johannine Gospel, especially its prologue. At the same time, the author gives the whole a Docetic cast. Besides presenting theologically-oriented teaching, the author knows how to spin strange and entertaining stories. There is for example, the lengthy account of the devout Drusiana and her ardent lover Callimachus in a sepulchre (§ 63-86), which was no doubt intended to provide Christians with an alternative to the widely-read libidinous story of the Ephesian widow and the guard at her late husband's tomb.
For a lighter touch the author entertains his readers with the droll incident of the bedbugs (§ 60-61). Although the Acts of John is without importance for the historical Jesus and the apostle John, it is nevertheless valuable for tracing the development of popular Christianity. It is, for example, the oldest source recording the celebration of the Eucharist for the dead (§ 72). The Acts of John may have been composed by a member of the Hellenistic cultivated classes, who drew upon various literary genuses and in so doing, without any specific attachment to a concrete community, sought to propagate a Christianity as he understood it, as the expression of certain aspirations of a philosophical attitude to the world which he had held even before his conversion.
|
I do not agree with the chronology mentioned above by those academics, since I am of the opinion this was authored by Arius of Alexandria between 324 and 336 CE, and such tractates incurred the wrath of Constantine because they were clearly seditious against the authority of the canon.
Here is how it is mentioned perhaps mid fourth century:
Quote:
|
All the books which Leucius the disciple of the devil made apocryphi are to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.
|
To me this indicates that someone did not think highly of the Acts of John. It represented some sort of problem to the authodox christians who followed the canon of Constantine.
Seeing this thread is about Euesbius, here is what Eusebius himself says concerning the Acts of John ..... same as the above:
Quote:
we have felt compelled to give this catalogue
in order that we might be able to know both
these works and those that are cited
by the heretics under the name of the apostles,
including, for instance, such books as
* the Gospels of Peter,
* of Thomas,
* of Matthias,
* or of any others besides them, and
* the Acts of Andrew and John and
* (John) and
* the other apostles,
which no one belonging to the succession
of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy
of mention in his writings.
7 And further, the character of the style
is at variance with apostolic usage,
and both the thoughts and the purpose
of the things that are related in them
are so completely out of accord
with true orthodoxy that they
clearly show themselves to be
the fictions of heretics.
Wherefore they are not to be placed
even among the rejected writings,
but are all of them to be cast aside
as absurd and impious.
|
Best wishes,
Pete
|
11-08-2008, 07:56 AM
