clint999

How do you know this?

The narrative reads:
1) Philip prays in the wrong direction for wind.
2) The Jew blashemes against Jesus Christ.
3) The wind fills the sails.
4) The aggressive Christian angel binds the Jew
by his two big toes to the top of the mast.

By what inference or postulate do you assert
contrary to the narrative, that the author intended
that Philip's prayer (in the wrong direction to the
gods of peace) would cause the wind?


Obviously we disagree.




But can we identify the cause of our disagreement?

And do others want to make a comment?
Either this is humorous or it is not.



That's a nice backhander for the fourth century writers.
Do you see yourself as "more sophisticated" than they?
Obviously.

Perhaps this is one cause of our disagreement.
I do not make this assumption that the fourth,
third, second, first, etc authors of antiquity were
an unsophisticated crew of commentators.

Perhaps you need to expand your reading outside
of the purported Christian writers of this period.
Have you ever studied ancient history Toto?
What are your criteria for "sophistication"?

Best wishes,



Pete Brown

mountainman

For a number of reasons the consensus of the chronology
of the Acts of Philip is later fourth century, and has
something to do with the christians in Carthage, like
the Romans destroying the Cathaginian civilisation,
the christians were destroying it again. Burning.

However a far more citable chronology is Nag Hammadi.
Here we have a C14 date of 348 CE plus or minus 60 years.
The narrative of TAOPATTA is from the ground at c.348 CE.



IMO "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" is a satire.
However, it has within it - out of the reach of the satire, a
core as follows:

1) The Living Pearl of Wisdom - Core Allegory: Ascetic Path & Healing
2) The Name of the Healer - The Critical Christian Claim Denounced
3) The Pearl Man Lithargoel - Enigmatic citizen of Nine Gates (Gita!)
4) The Endurance of Habitation - the Poverty of the Hellenes.

Once this core is removed, once this pearl is removed, we have
left the husk of the shell in the gnostic sense.

The rest of the text involves the satire of the christian apostles.
Hellenic Satire of Christianity ...

Satire/Parody 101 - The "Spiritual" Covenant of Christian Ministry?
Satire/Parody 102 - The "Path": Evasion, Hearsay and Abstraction
Satire/Parody 103 - Ascetic Spiritual peace amidst the manifest fear?
Satire/Parody 104 - Basic skills (memory, cognition, healing) ?
Satire/Parody 105 - Apostlic Ascetism - Food, Baggage and Lodgings ?
Satire/Parody 1001 - Ministry of the Rich = "Fitting" Spiritual Bond with the Rich

Details of this analysis listing the lines in the source doicument from the Nag Hammadi library may be found at this index page entitled:

TAOPATTA - The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles

This is arguably a non-Christian ascetic allegory and Hellenic satire/parody featuring a (central to the allegory) citation of the Bagavad Gita in its depiction of The City of Nine Gates, as follows ...


Why does the author of NHC 6.1 cite the Bhagvad Gita in its core allegory of the pearl of great price? Has anyone asked this question yet?


Best wishes,


Pete


PS: I am trying to deal with the texts.
With the evidence in our possession.

Jeffrey Gibson

Then you'd better find out how many gates Jerusalem had.

Jeffrey

mountainman

The gates of the New Jerusalem or that of the Old Jerusalem?
But really Jeffrey, what's your take on the NHC?
Do you agree with statements made by Robin Lane-Fox for example?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

In particular we have currently the case of Tina Fey satirising Sarah Palin on SNL, and a host of commentary indicating that the satire has gone straight over the heads of many people. In order to understand the presence of satire we must be in a certain sense alert to the presence of satire, otherwise the satire simply passes us by as if we were totally insensitive to it.

The apochryphal new testament corpus as a genre is a satirical and parodic treatment of the new testament canon (the lavish Constantinian publication of c.331 CE). This satire passes most everyone by because most everyone is not sensitive and alert to it. How can we independently test for the presence of satire?

Anyone?


Best wishes,




Pete

Toto

I don't think so. The satire is obvious in that case and I don't know of anyone who didn't recognize it.

Contrast the obvious satire of Lucian (Christians are gullible, taken advantage of by a con man) with the fanciful but still respectful treatment of Christians in the Acts of Philip (angels aid him, revenge is taken on the Jews, Christians win in the end.)

squiz

I am a countryman of yours who happens to live in a foreign country - Germany. I recently read a famous German book that I was convinced must have been a big send up of certain attitudes that I don't happen to share, but everyone I have spoken to believes that it was meant seriously. Sometimes ideas can be so foreign to you that you assume that their expression has to be meant ironically. This is especially the case when they come from a different tradition to your own. I still suspect that there might be some satire deep in this book, but I guess that I have to defer to those who grew up in this culture and understand it better.

I for one wouldn't be too confident of being able to recognise satire in ancient texts, without being totally familiar with the genre and the culture. It is hard enough between basically similar Western cultures, let alone alien cultures.

BTW. I am not repeating the slander that the Germans have no sense of humour. At their best, as with Loriot, they can be hilarious.

Amaleq13

Sarah didn't, necessarily, but she claims she watched with the sound down so that might not count.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

There were a few.

Leaving aside for the moment that it is my contention that Eusebius forged a number of books in the name of Lucian (including Life of Peregrine, Alexander the Prophet, in which he introduces christians) there are two important issues here imo:

1) Lucian wrote from an epoch of relative stability and in the same epoch as the author Apollonius of Tyana, whom Eusebius spends many books refuting in Philostratus. The second century political situation did not include a new imperial religion being thrust upon the empire, it did not include wholsale persecution and burning and destruction and neither did it include the excessive contrast between the tax-exempt classes and the heavily taxed citizens of the empire as did the fourth century.

2) Lucian's literature is not considered part of the new testament apochrypha, which is more or less restricted to weird narratives about Jesus and the canonical cast of disciples. These may be perceived to have been created in the epoch 324-394 CE at which time it was politically expedient to kow-tow to the imperial christian regime, and politically seditious to keep, to read, to entertain, or god forbid think of writing any seditious tracts against the power of the Constantinian canon.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear squiz,

In order to understand the background environment of the fourth century in which I claim Constantine needs to be perceived as a malevolent despot (eg: if you wish, think of a 4th century Hitler against whom the greek academic allies lost their freedom). WHen Constantine implemented his new state religion, the ancient religions of the eastern empire were prohibited by the use of the military, the writings of the leading academics were publically burnt, priest of the old religions (up until that time collegiate and co-operative) were executed, temples and shrines were utterly demolished, heavt taxation was implemented, tax-exemptions were granted to anyone converting to Constantine's political strategy.

When Constantine went to the underworld, it was business as usual. When the last resistance in the form of Julian fell, then the imperial cult of christianity became supreme by persecution and burning. What are we to infer from Cyril burning need to refute the lies of Julian?

But more than this - back to the main point ans issue here - given this political environment the NT non canonical literature may be perceived as clever satire against the canon. The absolute authority of the canon, which has essentially survived to this day in one form of another, was under attack from the greek speeking academic and ascetic priests whom Constantine had forced into desert refuges. The people of the eastern empire literally fled the implementation of the emperor cult which Constantine offically named christianity, and which Julian officially legislated to be known as some cult of the Galilaeans.

What do my responents have to say about the satire written by Julian against Constantine and against the figure of Jesus Henry Christ in his extant work entiled The Caesars. Anyone unfamiliar with Libanius need not apply further here.



Best wishes,


Pete