arnoldo

It seems difficult to pinpoint an exact date for the arrival of christianity into India however according to this source there already was a jewish presence in India before!

mg01

I'm not sure these methods would apply to a parable. The shortened NT versions are themselves hint at meanings beyond the literal text that would have been recognizable to the audience of the time. The existance of other material elaborating on these parables (and in some cases with different emphasis) gives the background meaning. It's a similar situation with other references such as to Jonah. Not knowing who Jonah was renders the reference useless.

Also, if the NT authors were portraying their idea of Jesus differently than their competitors they had to deal with any well known teachings by them. Incorporating them into their own text and recasting the meaning with a bit of shadowing is the best way to do this. This possibility can't be dismissed and may be more likely given the tendency of the "catholic/univeral" branding of Christianity.

This potentially goes a long way in explaining the popularity of the cannonical gospels. Since they seem to have been writen in somewhat of an "accomodationist" fashion, regardless of what strain of the gospel you may have heard initially, there is enough familiarity to grab onto. With time you come around to the other parts along with the rest of the group.

mountainman

Very interesting comments thanks. The milieu in which the new testament canonical authors lived and breathed and had their being was Hellenistic. They attempted to borrow without correct attribution a great deal of "wisdom sayings". In todays world the new testament might have been formed by a process of "Cut-and-Paste-ianity".

The problem as I see it is explaining two things simultaneously.
On the one hand we have the emergence of the NT canon and
on the other hand the emergence of the NT apocryphal books
(ie: the non canonical gospels, acts, etc). The latter must
have been written after the former because the latter take
bits and pieces of the former and weave them together in
different combinations and permutations and then adding things.
The Gnostics were very clever and academic at this art.

The problem is explaining the big picture.

It is thus not simply a matter of explaining the 22-27 canonical books. The complete mystery of the origins of the new testament books (ie" both the canon PLUS the "Hidden Books") mandates an explanation of the 100 or more books of the apocryphal new testament authored by the gnostics.

We obviously do not understand who these gnostics were in any specific historical sense despite the forays into Eusebian Valentinianisms and other Eusebian derived flavors of gnosticism. Eusebius is a hostile witness to the gnostics. The texts themselves are only now beginning to be interpretted outside of the hegemon created by Eusebius concerning these "Gnostics".

I am of the opinion that all the new testament apocryphal books were not yet authored at the time of the council of Nicaea, but that they were written shortly thereafter as an academic Hellenistic reaction to the authority which Constantine decreed shall be invested in the NT canon books - which Constantine supported and widely published - lavishly and without thought of expense like his basilicas.

Thus I am trying to argue that the gnostics were simply the resistance to Constantine's state religion - Alexandrian Hellenistic academics who took the liberty of writing unauthorised additional stories (preserved in the NHC and elsewhere) about Caesar's (who by ancient law and his role as "Pontifex Maximus" had such authority) New God Jesus Christ. They then produced books describing "The Travels of the Twelve Apostles". The name of Leucius Charinus (associated with the Acts of Thomas, Paul, etc) is a key small part in this four dimensional jig-saw puzzle of ancient history concerning the origins of the new testament books (both "visible" and "hidden"). The ground of the fourth century needs to be reinterpretted. The controversy of the words of Arius stemming from the Council of Nicaea raged for centuries. Apparently not everyone agreed that the new god Jesus Christ was exactly the same essence as the (old and Platonic) traditional Hellenistic divinity.

Thanks for your comments.

Clivedurdle

Reading the tale of Lithargoel, my reaction is that a pre existing story was xianised by adding the bit about Jesus at the end - the bit where Jesus exposes himself is very interesting! I see a rollicking fairy tale of a very common genre with a twist about hope and justice. Adding Jesus to it in fact wrecks it by turning attention from seeking to finding - what exactly?

And Matthew is a redaction - possibly as an aide memoire for the full version.

I see no reason to think the time line is short long - editing and summarising and honing are very ancient skills!

Peter and the eleven may also be xianised - how many were there in Jason and the Argonauts? Has a common "group enters fabulous city" tale been religified?:devil1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_poetry

renassault

The thing is, the merchant is not identified. The parable stood by itself to be recognized, and Jesus' cryptic parable-style doubtlessly doesn't necessitate it to be an extract of a longer version. The background is the explanation to be obtained from the allegory (Matthew 13:46).

If the pearl of great price was a different portrayal of well-known competing teachings, one would expect a lot more elaboration as is the case with the Gnostic texts. The popularity of the canonical Gospels is due to the tradition associated with them. The tradition likely comes from Orthodox centers of Christianity accepting the Gospels, and it's unlikely they were simply winning out the competition as they would have never been accepted in the first place. This "accomodation" you talk about is a bit of an assumption that someone would grab onto one part and eventually come to the other. Apparently, the Gnostics, Valentinians, Marcion, Montanists, etc, grabbed onto one part, tore it aside and created a different meaning.

renassault

Untrue as any New Testament scholar can prove to you (especially Bultmann who attributes all of the Synoptic material to a Palestinian origin). The sensitiveness of work on the Sabbath (Luke 13:14 and other examples), phrases that are Jewish ('whom Satan has kept bounded' Luke 13:16, 2 Corinthians 12:7) statements that can only be understood in the context of rabbinic Judea (Luke 13:15, Matthew 12:11-12, etc), knowledge and explanation of Jewish customs and Aramaic words (Mark 7:3, 11) and many others.

Hundreds of books being written within a few decades in response? No historical, direct attacks on Christianity? Thousands simply took up another religion under cover as a response?

mountainman

Philostratus has credentials of historicity which do not appear
in any visible form for the counterpart authors of the gospels etc.
Eusebius firmly believed Philostratus history, and refers
to it as a history on many occassions. We may rest assured
Apollonius was far more likely to have trecked to India to converse
with the Brahmins that did Jesus treck around from pub to pub,
sampling the chrestos wine, kissing pretty women (where?), and
knawing on the bones of dead animals as if asceticism was to
be considered as an authority put to the side.

Because, unlike the Romans and the Jews, the Indians were educated.
Greek had come to India perhaps even before Alexander the Great.
Notably, the Indias turned back Alexander's advances.
But the cultures at least from the time of Alexander were confluenced
to more or less degrees on a regional basis between the two continents.
Have a look at Ashoka, and the Buddha coins of 3rd century Persia under
the influence of Mani the Prophet -- who emulated Apollonius by doing
]the same treck to India to converse with the Brahmins.

mountainman

Dont you mean the bit where Lithargoel exposes himself,
and as a result the apostles prostrated themselves
on the ground and worshipped him. ?

The twist IMO is that the author is satirising the apostles.
The apostles prostrate themselves on the ground in the oriental
fashion made popular by Constantine on a number of occassions.
They are constantly wandering around seeking food and lodging.
They are hardly ascetics on the path.

The Allegory of the path is stated by Lithargoel.
Lithargoel - another stone like Peter - is the centralk figure.
He is a healer in the Hellenistic tradition of the therapeutae of Asclepius.
One writer (Molinari?) called Lithargoel a "Jewish Asclepius".
He says this because he does not understand the "Hellenistic Asclepius".
Healing is conducted not by miracle work but by medicine, herbs
and assistants in training. See Galen and the history of modern medicine.




But they did not actually enter into the city!
They tarried at the gate in a state of reverie.
Unable to indentify the man Lithargoel who had told them about the city.
They are clueless and inept boneheads.
They cannot count their number - was it 11, 12 or 13?
Every single line of the text in relation to the apostles is a satire
against their aptitude.

The classic one against Peter is this ...

And Peter was frightened,
for how did he know
that his name was Peter?

Peter is presented as a total fool.
How many times does he ask the residents the name of the island?
How many times is he afraid?

The author of TAOPATTA is a very clever gnostic Hellenist.
It is a satire against the "Christian Ministry" in the epoch
of he codex, since Lithargoel and Peter both carry codices.
Notably, the codices carried by Lithargoel and Peter
were not the same essence. They were similar essence.


Lithargoel is not Jesus: The Apostles are Clueless!

Did Jesus ever stomp around town wearing these clothes?

A man came out wearing a cloth bound around his waist, and a gold belt girded it. Also a napkin was tied over his chest, extending over his shoulders and covering his head and his hands. I was staring at the man, because he was beautiful in his form and stature. There were four parts of his body that I saw: the soles of his feet and a part of his chest and the palms of his hands and his visage.

And when Lithargoel reveals himself top the apostles at the end,
who had earlier completely failed to recognise the man from their
earlier encounter, he takes off the robe to reveal what? The above
description of outlandish appearance?

The gnosticism in TAOPATTA is well hidden.
When seeking a pearl from a clam a diver removes the shell.

Take out of the text of TAOPATTA the expanded parable
of the Pearl "City", the data about the question of the name
of the Healer, and the question about who is Lithargoel
and all you have left are statement relating to the apostles
each of which, perhaps hundreds, without exception, are
satirising the character of the apostles.


The author of "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles"
has set a very clever trap for people with Christian glasses
in that they are compelled to see the story on the surface
with the superficial association of Jesus and Lithargoel.

mountainman

The Pearl merchant wandering around town
in a strange garb shouting "Pearls! Pearls" is
actually identified with the name Lithargoel
in the acts of peter and the 11, 12 or 13 apostles.



So the orthodox (who issue the Christian Glasses)
would have us believe. A plain and simple explanation
fits with the description Ammianus provides as that
of the entire christian religion itself.

The gnostics certainly expanded the canon.
Buit by bit they added traditions about Jesus
and about the "history of the travels of the
apostles" in a classicial Homerian fashion.

The parable of the Pearl in TAOPATTA involves
an understanding of the ascetic path, and the
traditional useage of the idea of this "City of
Nine Gates" - often used to represent the human
body - in which resides the "soul" - or the pearl
of great price.

"Pearls! Pearls !
Read all aboit it!
Shout the gnostics!

Pearls ! Pearls.
Pathway and asceticism say the gnostics!

Pearl! Pearl! says the othodox christian glasses.
Matthew 13:46 ! Matthew 13:46 !
Dont need to know any more.

mountainman

JESUS AS A SORCEROR in TAOPATTA

The gJudas presents twelve daimons, of which Judas was one,
unable to maintain eye contact with the head daimon Jesus.
The connotation is MAD Magazine. We are reading satire.

The same stuff happens in "The Acts of Peter and the 12".
The apostles prostrate themselves on the ground to who they think is Jesus.
The apostles prostrate themselves twice.
They do not get up off the ground under their own volition.
Jesus repeatedly caused them to rise.

They continually seek an external power source in Jesus.
It did not move within them: they required board and lodging and food.

The gnostic authors used satire to state their displeasure with the political situation during the fourth century when christianity was first brought to the public eye of the gentile (Graeco-Roman) populace and academics. Christianity was not well known before this time unless you had read your Eusebius and which Greek read Eusebius before Nicaea?

Take off the "Christian Glasses" for a moment and consider the plight of the Hellenistic populace which was forced at the point of a sword to accept the canon of the new testament and christianity. Who suffered? The healing priests of the therapeutae of Asclepius were one class of people who suffered when the state religion was codifed by Constantine into laws such as:

324 CE: "Religious priviledges are reserved for christians [ALONE]

This authoritarian and fascist political situation brought on by Constantine explains the satire
not only of the gnostic gospels and acts but also the invectives of the emperor Julian c.361 CE