Toto

This is still not evidence that the Gospel of Peter was part of that ridicule.

You can't ignore what Eusebius actually wrote about the gospel of Peter and then quote him for the proposition that the Christian holy writ was ridiculed in Greco-Roman theater, and claim that is evidence that the gospel of Peter was pagan satire. There is just no connection.

mountainman

There is little doubt that the walking talking cross is ridiculous. The connection is Eusebius who is regarded as both the historian of the heretics and the historian of the orthodox - a dual role which in anyone's estimate has to represent a conflict of interests. I have provided the justification for my consistent assessment in this essay.

mountainman

Nevertheless the story was authored by an author at a certain and specific historical date and place and for a reason. Where this story fits into history is history. There is no doubt that the story is fictional, but we need to ascertain precisely when where and why it appeared in history.


That is not the only question and I dont think these are examples of the most important questions. The most important questions are when and where and why and by whom this fiction was authored. I dont see Mark Goodacre examining these questions at all.

andrewcriddle

See Shi'ur_Qomah

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Yes, that is it. I came across it in the commentary to the translation of 3 Enoch in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.

For the curious, here is a web page with an English translation.

DCH

mountainman

It may indeed appear to be a new and crazy idea, but the question is whether it could be closer to the historical truth. What does the evidence say? (See below)

The evidence regarding this gospel is as follows: Big E. provides the mainstream dating estimate c.170 CE for The Gospel of Peter. Eusebius cites Origen, Justin Martyr and Serapion as mentioning this text although in the case of Justin, MR James comments that “the evidence is not demonstrative”. Eusebius has an unknown Serapion report that he walked into a Gnostic library and “borrowed” a copy of this text.

The indication that this gospel was not written in the 4th century is summarised above, and is entirely a result of using the literary testimony of Eusebius as an historical authority on the history of the heretics. It is not crazy to question the perceived authority of Eusebius on the history of the heretics. Here is what Erhman writes:


Archaeological evidence of the church and the cross appear in the 4th century. A walking talking cross ambling after three gigantic super-human cosmic sized figures, in communication with "God" is common anti-Christian satire in my book. It is a fitting subject for the political commentary expected in Alexandrian Greek theatres in response to and reaction against the widespread appearance of the Constantine Bible at Nicaea. Eusebius was not good with chronology.

The gospel of Peter was written by vile heretics who made fun of the crucifixion and the cross of salvation. But when was it authored? It appears to be the case that in matters of chronography of the heretics, people (Biblical Historians?) are using Eusebius as a guide and reliable sign-post in error, and that other people are unwilling for some reason to discuss other quite viable options (that do not contradict the known and available evidence) .

Toto

This is the definition of an ad hoc argument. You don't like what Eusebius says here, so you reject it, while you do like what he said in another part, so you accept it.

If you want to reject what Eusebius says about gPeter, you need some reason. however slight, for him to back date the gospel. Why would he do that? It was a heretical gospel and he did not rely on it for any sort of authority. :huh:


You are using the term church here to refer to a physical structure, while I used the word to refer to the organization.
It is not common, and it is not anti-Christian. You have never shown any feeling for the culture of the first few centuries which would allow you to recognize satire.

This is not what heretics did. Don't confuse heretics with anti-Christian pagans.

What is there to discuss? You keep repeating your claims, but you never support your arguments.

aa5874

Well, if that is the meaning of "AD HOC" then Goodacre made an AD HOC argument.

Goodacre does NOT like the story of the walking cross so he rejects it and accepts the parts he likes even though without the walking cross the story of the three men with their heads EXTENDED to heaven would still be IMPLAUSIBLE.

Goodacre presented an AD HOC argument not a solution. The story is STILL considered IMPLAUSIBLE with or without the walking cross.

mountainman

This is not my position or argument - see following.

It's appearance c.325 CE as a reaction to the Constantine Bible was very embarrassing for both Eusebius and Constantine, but they sorted out the problem of the appearance of the heretical books by censorship. A decade later, when Eusebius put the final touches on his momumental series of books concerning the history of things before Nicaea, he retrojected the appearance of the contraversial heretical books into his "Church History", in order to downplay the controversy which ensued after Nicaea.


The Vita Constantini Reference to "Ridicule of the Holy Scriptures"


You need to be aware that this work from Eusebius is generally classified outside of his other works that primary concern "Church History" or the epoch prior to Nicaea. Is Constantine really Moses in disguise? Is Eusebius writing a hagiography? Eusebius is writing c.337 CE on the death of the Boss, and he is recounting events in his own life-time, not somewhere down the long and lonely untrodden path of centuries ago.

He states:

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching were exposed to the most shameful ridicule in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

How Controversies originated at Alexandria through Matters relating to Arius
Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", Ch. LXI

Admissions in Vita Constantini have always been examined in a different light than admissions made in Historia Ecclesiastica or most of his other works. The way I read the above is that he is not lying, and that Constantine met with some resistance, and the last of the persecutors would soon be stamped out, and that soon there would be harmony and golden sunrises because Constantine would fight for the Jesus in the canonical books.





The historical reality was that these alternative gospels and acts were political dynamite set against Constantine's agenda with the Canonical Books within the Constantine Bible. He was looking for monotheistic unity in the Roman Empire and he sought the canonization of the Constantine Bible. But he did not achieve this. He had some problems with this ambition.

Not everyone was a believer in the ultimate authority of Constantine's Bible. The Apocryphal material was very popular with the common people, and the non canonical books are mentioned for centuries as being related to, or being preserved by various heretical groups, and particularly those who were characterized as "Arian" in that they maintained one or more of the 5 sophisms of Arius which are present on the earliest of the Nicaean Creeds out of Nicaea, as a disclaimer clause, as an anathema.

Either Eusebius, or his preservers, ameliorated the massive controversy over the sudden appearance of books (both canoical and non canoical) by spreading out their authorship and writing a presentation of a false history in which some of these heretical books were authored before Nicaea.





I am using it for both, and in fact prefer the term "universal church" as used by Arnaldo Momigliano, which I have posted here and there a few times.






Allow me to be more specific. It is anti-Canonical-Christian. My argument is that the Constantine Bible was met with academic Greek authorship of competitive stories, such as the books authored by Arius of Alexandria. It was anti-Christian orthodoxy where the orthodoxy is clearly defined by the canon of the books inside Constantine's Bible.




The academic Classicists have already defined the terrain. The Greeks were masterful exponents of political satire from the beginning and this freedom of speech was well developed in Alexandria c.325 CE when they received the "Good News" about the status of the Constantine Bible. All academics recognise the satire of Emperor Julian against Constantine and Jesus. Moreover sources of Athanasius disclose that he compares Arius three times to Sotades, a known historical political Greek satirist of the epoch BCE.

IMHO the walking talking cross is a political 4th century Greek satire against the cross defined in the (canonical) books of the Constantine Bible. The stories in Constantine's Bible were mimicked and parodied, and performed in the theatres of the unbelievers. These people were the heretics - they would not accept Constantine's Bible. They wrote their own story of Jesus and the Cross. How heretical can you get? Constantine's mother's successful archaeological expedition to the "Holy Land" is incidental to the history of the heretical walking talking cross.

mountainman

Here is the solution as blogged ....


The idea of a walking, talking cross is almost unbelievably absurd so we should think of changing it? The idea of Peter passing a camel through the eye of a needle in the Acts of Peter and Andrew is almost unbelievably absurd so we should think of changing it Of course not! The Gnostic Gospels and Acts are incredibly jammed-pack full of such absurdities, and they have been called a "textual critic's nightmare" for perhaps just this reason.

Why is the author presenting an absurdity in a Gnostic Gospel? I think the explanation is that the Gnostic authors thought that the original Jesus stories were absurd.