mountainman

It was heretical. From the perspective of the authoritarian orthodox there would have been sufficient cause to associate the act of satirization with heresy. The docetic tendencies are just more satire - because the satirist is saying that Jesus never lived in the real world of history, but just "seemed to be hanging around".

Toto

Just because you find every aspect of Christianity to be absurd, you cannot argue that it was written as satire. Early Christians really did believe in ghosts and demons and entities that appeared to exist, but were really of some higher substance.

You invented this idea of satire as an epicycle to explain away evidence that did not fit your Constantinian origin of the gospels. But it just doesn't fly.

stephan huller

I obviously don't have a problem with discussions that veer off topic. Yet it seems that the familiar people have ever familiar talking points. It's as if it is all they are capable of saying. I have been trying to think of a parallel to Goodacre's point. The closest I can come up with is what happens to Revelations 16:5 in the manuscripts.

I think Goodacre's point is quite significant. There must have been other instances of mistaking and confusions related to nomena sacra. Still working on a more exact parallel.

aa5874

Please, if Goodacre doesn't know what was in the original then he cannot assume he knows. There is NO need to introduce AD HOC arguments based on what he thinks make sense.

The story does NOT make sense with or without the walking talking cross.

What you claim may be erroneous. Of course I have a basis for my opinion just as you think you have a basis for yours.

I told you already that the story is IMPLAUSIBLE with or without the walking talking cross.

Goodacre has NO source of antiquity that can corroborate that there was a scribal mistake. Goodacre has simply made an AD HOC argument once he cannot supply the source of antiquity that can show there was or likely to be a scribal mistake in a story that appears to be blatant FICTION and IMPLAUSIBLE.

mountainman

I do not find every aspect of the history of orthodox canonical Christianity to be absurd. I have been quite specific. There appear to be examples of parody and satire in many (not all) New Testament Apocryphal writings. These texts represent a "reaction of the heretics", of whom we knew very little before the appearance of the Nag Hammadi codices and the Tchacos Codex and their associated C14 dating to an epoch corresponding approximately to Nicaea c.325 CE.

Our authority on "Early Orthodox (i.e. Canonical) Christian authors" and "Early Heretical Christian authors" in both cases appears to be Eusebius. In general, with Eusebius as the master heresiologist, our sources for the history of the gnostic and docetic gospels (such as gPeter) are orthodox christian heresiologists. Early orthodox christians/heresiologists also believed in forgery and interpolation. You have not made any comment upon the analysis of the evidence presented below:




Analysis of over 100 New Testament Apocyrphal Texts by Witness Categories

Evidence of 4th century authorship: 51 %
No early witnesses ...............: 25 %
No text available to examine .....: 8 %
Eusebius is earliest witness .....: 5 %

Sub Total: 89 % 4th century

Eusebius presents early witnesses.: 11 % (suspicious)

About the new testament canonical books Carrier writes that "Eusebius is either a liar OR hopelessly credulous.". What is your real problem with my claim that about the new testament non canonical books that "Eusebius is either a liar OR hopelessly credulous." but the betting is that he lied. This issue does not impact the history of canonical christianity or the history of the books of the NT canon. It is able to be examined independently.

It should be clear that the theory of early authorship for this walking talking cross in gPeter and all other heretical gnostic texts follows Eusebius hook, line and sinker, on the basis of his presentation of "earlier witnesses". But what if Eusebius lied? And if people do not like the verb "lied", then we can replace it with "made another error in chronography". Eusbeius has no reputation as a competent chronographer according to the foremost ancient historians.

Anti-Christian satire is evidenced. Emperor Julian wrote a satire against Constantine and Jesus in the mid 4th century which is set somewhere in the sublunar realms and features a succession of Roman Emperors and other great military commanders. I did not invent the fact that Emperor Julian wrote anti-Christian satire, since this is common knowledge.

The Koran was satirized when it was put forward as a "Holy Writ" by Muhammad, and the first thing he did when he achieved military supremacy was to arrange for a number of executions, which included a number of key satirists.

I should not need to invent the idea that it is reasonable to expect a political reaction to the Constantine Bible (and the implementation of the mootheistic state religion of Christianity c.325 CE) that includes satirization from the Alexandrian Greeks. I have provided citations to the sources for Athanasius that you have remained silent upon - where Athanasius compares Arius 3 times to an historical BCE Greek political satirist - Sotades. The evidence is also clear that Constantine subjected Arius of Alexandria to political exile, and then pronounced political "damnatio memoriae" upon his books, his name and his "remembrance in this world".

I am not inventing this evidence. I am attempting to explain it. I am rather impervious to any claim that sacred history poses problems which are not those of profane history. Did the Apostles travel hither and thither on "bright clouds"? Where did Jesus kiss Mary many times? Is the Infant Jesus a Child-Killer and a malevolent spirit? Did the Apostles really destroy the major Temples of Apollo by fasting and the assistance of angels? Lithargoel is not Jesus but a physician-priest of the therapeutae of Asclepius (the 11, 12 or 13 Apostles repeatedly fail to identity him).

stephan huller

Here is exactly what I was looking for - a parallel to Goodacre's thesis but found by another Canadian (who happens to be smarter than me).

http://www.tonyburke.ca/apocryphicit...talking-cross/

mountainman

Neither of these blog theses make reference to the citation by Photius on the gPeter, that seems to indicate that the version of gPeter which Photius had before him had "much idle and absurd nonsense about the Cross" - and not "the resurrected one". This reference from Photius does not support the position adopted by these bloggers that it was not the cross, but the resurrected one. The Photius reference just seems to indicate an indignant response to the author - Leucius Charinus. The names Leucius and Charinus first appear in the 4th century.

The original blog notes an approximate date:
AFAIK Photius wrote about 845 CE
Perhaps Photius is spluttering and choking on the satire of the heretical author Leucius? This author was cursed and cussed by the orthodox bishops and Roman Emperors in the 4th and 5th centuries etc. Why?

Toto

So Photius could have been reading this corrupted version. Or the absurd nonsense about the cross could refer to Jesus not suffering on the cross.

Docetism.

aa5874

So, Photius could have been reading some other version or the original. Who knows what Photius was reading?

But, it is known what Photius wrote about the contents.

Why does Goodacre target the walking talking cross when the story itself is very silly and self-contradictory?

There is simply NO indication that any scribe was confused or made any mistake in the Gospel of Peter.

Goodacre's argument is AD HOC based on your own definition and completely unsupported by any sources of antiquity.

JoeWallack

JW:
I think Goodacre's proposal is nonsense and I've given him the criticism it deserves here:

http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2011/07...ing-cross.html



Joseph

CROSS, n. An ancient religious symbol erroneously supposed to owe its significance to the most solemn event in the history of Christianity, but really antedating it by thousands of years. By many it has been believed to be identical with the crux ansata of the ancient phallic worship, but it has been traced even beyond all that we know of that, to the rites of primitive peoples. We have to-day the White Cross as a symbol of chastity, and the Red Cross as a badge of benevolent neutrality in war.

ErrancyWiki