Casper

Interesting as always pete. Thanks.

I don't completely subscribe to your 4th century theories as you've posted in the past, although I don't dismiss them easily and always follow the threads as best I can. That doesn't necessarily matter in this post though. There is no conflict in the accepted chronological order, only the timeframes between them. And allowing for rewriting and rehashing of the same basic text, becomes a whole sidetrack.

I guess I can only ask your opinion of an alternative idea; that the non-canonicals as you call stack 2 were not meant as parody, and not necessarily even meant for commentary but more like a writing exercise by someone who was simply a pretty poor teller of tales? Possibly someone whose own education had been narrow and centered around works of parody?

mountainman

Thanks Casper.

Other's opinions and vantage points are often intriguing.
We are dealing with a belief structure which has been
perceived in a myriad of ways. DUscussion is useful.

This issue with the non canonical acts being anti-christian
polemical reaction to the publication and authority of the
canonical Constantine Bible is a separate issue to the idea
that Constantine invented christianity.

Irrespective of the source of pre-nicene christianity, the
changes made by COnstantine in the social, political and
technological aspects of the empire were enormous. There
was bound to be some reaction to this.

There are 16 non canonical acts. I have examined 6.
Yesterday I added a seventh. The Acts of John, which
contain blatantly docetic content, such as:

.... 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).

Well my opinion is that the authors of the non canonical texts
were probably many and varied. I have as yet examined just
seven of the acts, and my opnion is that the authors of these
texts were not composed by people of inferior education.

In one case, the Nag Hammadi text, The Acts of Peter and
the Twelve Apostles (NHC 6.1) my opinion is that the author
was far cleverer that COnstantine and Eusebius. The author
is in fact so clever in disguising his anti-christian polemic,
that the text is still seen by the majority of academic
commentators as "christian" on the basis that the key figure,
some mysterious travelling Pearl Man called Lithargoel, is
--- in their minds --- to be associated with Jesus Christ.

The text would have been read in front of Constantine
and his court full of christians, as a christian text, and
they would have loved it --- as the academics of today
still cherish its christian values. But underneath
this text is hidden allegory and hidden parody IMO.

When these hidden things are explained, COnstantine et
al would have been enraged that they could have been
tricked so easily by the author, and they would have
attempted to apprehand the author, and to destroy
the work.

IMO, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the
author of TAOPATTA was Arius of Alexandria. We know
that Constantine wanted to execute Arius for his polemic.
We know that Constantine was sorely aware of the biting
and hard words of Arius --- who persecuted Constantine's
One True Church.

It will be interesting to see what emerges from a brief study
of the rest of the entire set of these NC Acts. I am happy
to defend my position and opinion that we are dealing with
anti-christian polemic and parody.

The sword was not an option. The mid fourth century when
most scholars think "The Acts of Philip" was written, and
the C14 348 CE on TAOPATTA (NHC 6.1) the emperors had
just become "christian" and the entire empire wide temple
services traditions had been despotically prohibited. The
populace and its traditional ascetic based priest structure
was entirely pissed off. They were in a state of endurance.

All they could do was to try and endure this thing called christianity.
They couldnot fight it since it descended from the imperial court.
They tried to take up the pen against it.
Thus we have the parody of "The Acts of Philip",
etc, etc, etc


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Casper

I appreciate your response. I'm currently perusing your site, and going through some of this text, it occurs to me that I am seeing more "parody" or outlandishness than I would have noticed before, except a part of me wonders if that is simply because the idea has been placed in my head by these posts.

Its kind of like reading the onion; if you know the source then you don't bother to take it seriously, but if you just came across one of their articles you might be tempted into disbelief through the "back door". Which I guess is one role of parody.

mountainman

Because it is a total opposite to the political actions
and the "GOOD NEWS" reflected in the texts of the
canonical "Acts of the Apostles".


Yes, slavery was an established institution, the structure of which
changed - as all things do - over time. The complexity of the Law
Codes of the fifth century is multiplied manifold due to the many
permutations and combinations reflected in the form of the slave
and master relationship. However, slaves often held central and
senior responsible positions - heads of libraries, etc, etc, etc.

However we are not talking about the general civilian populace.
We are talking about the purported man Jesus Christ of the canonical
bible, who was supposed to be a LOGOS MAN. Why is he the slave
master of Thomas. "Christodoulos" can call himself a Thomas, and
a slave of christ. This has nothing to do with the question why
Jesus Christ himself is explicity described as a slave master.


On the one hand above you say Christians actually slayed
non christian priests (which we know happened all the way
through the fourth century and beyond), and in the next
breath you say --- its just a story and the product of
human imagination.

Does it not occur to you that the story itself is written by
some of the non christians being persecuted? That the
people who were on the receiving end of christian attrocites
(which we know actually happened 324-524 CE) were the
authors of this text.

If you admit the reality, why does this story need to be
imagination. If the christian persecutions happened when
the canon was layed down, by successive Eccesiastical
Councils (4th CE), why is it difficult for you to believe that
the authors of this text, was one of the persecuted non-christians?

Imagine a non-christian gnostic, educated, academic
pissed off at the rubbish and crap of the canon being
dealt out (very heavily) by the emperor and his "Bishops".

He picks up a pen, and writes
as the last resort of survival
bitter parody and polemic in
scorn of the new 4th CE cult.

Think of Arius. Read Constantine's
"Dear Arius" Letter of 333 CE.

The majority of scholars date the "Acts of Philip"
to the mid to late fourth century. THUS it only
seems more reasonable that my explanation here
is consistent with the evidence.

The Acts of Thomas however, is a different kettle
of fish, because the majority of mainstream scholars
date it, correctly or incorrectly, to the third century.
(You know what my opinion would be on this).


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Poe's Law


Now what I would like comment upon is the possibility
that this "non canonical Act of Philip" is a parody.

We might restate the following generalisation
of Poe's Law:


"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor,
it is impossible to create a parody of Christianity that SOMEONE
won't mistake for the real thing."


For example, Toto thinks this is Christian revenge fantasy
about beating up on the Jews.

OTOH I am convinced it is straight parody.
Does this example of Poe's Law assist in
understanding the difficulty here.

NB: Most scholars all date this text to the fourth century.

To summarise my position:

1) The author of this text was a non christian.

2) He is writing parody (anti-christian polemic) against the brutalities
of the fourth century imperial christian regime (See Vlasis Rassias).

3) Due to Poe's Law, because he is using "Christian Characters",
this parody has been mistaken for the real thing. That is, most
academic commentators are all assuming we have a christian doing
the writing of this text (and a whole stack of other texts).

As I hope readers can appreciate, this is not an immediately
straighforward issue, however the exemplification of Poe's Law
may assist the ice to be broken.

I am interested in any comments.
What do you think about this?
Could we be looking at a non-christian author
writing a parody against the christian ministry?

Poe's Law states the difficulty of the concept.
Can anyone perceive the issue I have been
attempting to explicate here?

To date, all commentators, have rigidly viewed
this author to have been ---for Christ's sake - a
"christian". Why the absolute rigidity?

My explanation is that they (and Toto) are
languishing in a state of Poe impairment!





Best wishes,



Pete Brown



PS:

Dear Toto,

Pls dont view this as any form of personal attack.
Your comments are representative of the comments
of a great many well-meaning and well-respected
academics (who I am claiming are all Poe impaired).

Toto

I think you really misunderstand Poe's Law, which is about the difficulty of distinguishing between a parody and unintentional self-parody.

But if it does apply here, it says that you can't tell that these are parodies, because a Christian could have written them. So I don't think that this helps you at all.

mountainman

Your position seems to be:

you can't tell that these are parodies,
because a Christian could have written them.

Poe's Law as I understand it states that it is extermely difficult to split
these two things.

Your summary seems apt:

Poe's Law = There exists a great difficulty of
distinguishing between a (christian) parody and unintentional
(christian) self-parody.

This is my point Toto.

I am up against this difficulty, for example, with you.
Pls see the PS above.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Toto

Let me try to break it down.

You think that the Acts is a parody. No one else seems to.

You bring up Poe's law. But Poe's law does not help you - if Poe's law applied here, all of Christian arguments would be so silly or ridiculous that you could not tell the difference.

So you still have no evidence in favor of parody.

Now, we do have at least one contemporary work that is generally regarded as a parody of Christianity - Lucian's Peregrino. But this is very different from the Acts. The Christians are portrayed as gullible, and no supernatural forces come to their aid.

So you still have nothing.

mountainman

See this index:

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

For examples of what appears to be on the surface as a
christian "weird story" written by -- of course a christian.
Poe's Law suggests we should check that the author was
simply a non-christian writing polemic.

This text is the first text in an ancient bound book containing
seven other texts, each of which is massively massively
non-christian, dealing with for example, the discourses of
the spiritual master Hermes, and treatises dedicated to the
god Asclepius. Why would then the very first text of this
book be pro-christian ravings, when by application of Poe's
Law, the possibility exists that it may well be a non christian
author (ie: an edicated pagan [ascetic] priest) writing parody?

The text is NHC 6.1 -- the first text of the sixth codex dug up
at Nag Hammadi, with a C14 date c.348 CE.

See my article on COnstantine's DEAR F**KING ARIUS Letter.

Arius of Alexandria was writing some heavy non Constantinian shit.
The boss was sorely displeased with Arius' polemical writing.
In contemplation of the nature of Poe's Law, try and imaging
the author of this "The Acts of Peter and the 11, 12 or 13 Apostles"
being Arius. Hence was this text preserved by the ascetic
Pachomonians -- as a polemic against Constantine's Canonical Acts.


Perhaps the singular most instance of the crticial nature
of Poe's Law is the question: "Was Lithargoel Jesus"?

Without Poe's Law, everyone so far identifies Lithargoel as J.
In considering Poe's Law, we need to obtain a vantage point
from which we see that Lithargoel is not necessarily Jesus.

Once you reach this top of the mountain, the polemic
only them falls into place. The difficulty of course, is to
dismiss the inate belief that we are reading a christian.


Best wishes



Pete Brown

mountainman

But dont you undertand Toto, to some people
and to some authors all of Christian arguments
in fact are so silly and/or ridiculous.

Such parody is obsured by the incessant operation
of Poe's Law upon the reader.


In this case we have the christian Eusebius interpolating the historical
author Lucian of Samosata into his text the Life of Peregrine. IMO,
Eusebius also forged, in the name of Lucian, the text of Alexander
the Prophet, which is a direct parody of the Asclepius cult. That is
the christian Eusebius parodies the opposition religion of Asclepius,
the Healing God of antiquity - extremely well respected archaeological
footprint.

DOnt you think the pagans were capable of writing parody
against the christian religion?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown