Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 08-10-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Extended life for New Testament parody

THE film Monty Python's Life of Brian was voted the funniest cinema comedy in a Channel 4 poll. It parodies the succeptibilities of religious believers. It beat Airplane!, Shaun of the Dead, and Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.

Does The Life of Brian deserve this accolade?

Of course the question here being asked is does the new testament apochrypha deserve this accolade? The parody is on the succeptibilities of religious believers. These parodies appear to exist all throughout the new testament apochrypha. Were these NT apochryphal writings fourth century versions of the Life of Brian?

Was Jesus ever a slave-master selling disciples?
Did the disciples ever cast lots for the nations?
Could Philip read or write greek?
How many apostles prostrated themselves in TAOPATTA?
Could the apostles count?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 08-10-2008, 08:35 PM

Is there necessary and sufficient evidence to consider the case that the production and authorship of the apochryphal texts emerged from the indigenous Hellenic collegiate structure of temples and their respective priesthoods like Monty Python's Life of Brian. Why did the words of Arius of Alexandria inflame the most notorious number one heresy on the many lists of heresies discussed by the galloping bishops at various church councils of the fourth century? Do the apochryphal texts contain evidence of religious satire and blasphemy against their counterpart canonical evidence? Did christianity start in Constantine's court? What evidence is there to the contrary?

Quote:

Religious satire and blasphemy accusations

The film has been seen as a critique of excessive religiosity, depicting organised and popular religion as hypocritical and fanatical. The film's satire on unthinking religious devotion is epitomised by Brian's attempt to persuade an enormous crowd of his followers to think for themselves:

Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Shhh!
The film also satirises both the tendency to interpret banal incidents as "signs from God" and the factions and infighting that can emerge from this. For example, when Brian loses his shoe, some of his over-zealous followers declare it to be a sign but they can't agree on what it means, while one other instructs them to "Cast off the shoe. Follow the gourd!" (which is viewed by some as being significant owing to Brian's seemingly charitable refusal to accept a price for it - and not even haggle over what it is worth - the truth actually being that it was a cheap, unwanted gift).

The (alleged) representation of Christ proved controversial. Protests against the film were organised based on its perceived blasphemy. On its initial release in the UK, the film was banned by several town councils – some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries, or had not even seen the film for themselves. A member of Harrogate council, one of those that banned the film, revealed during a television interview that the council had not seen the film, and had based their opinion on what they had been told by the Nationwide Festival of Light, of which they knew nothing.[5] As recently as 2008, the mayor of the Welsh town of Aberystwyth (Sue Jones-Davies, who played Judith Iscariot in the film) was still trying to remove the local council's long ban of the film.[11]

In New York, screenings were picketed by both rabbis and nuns ("Nuns with banners!" observed Michael Palin)[7] while the film was banned outright in some American states.[6] It was also banned for eight years in the Republic of Ireland and for a year in Norway (it was marketed in Sweden as '"The film so funny that it was banned in Norway").[12]

Cleese and Palin defending the film on Friday Night, Saturday Morning.In the UK, Mary Whitehouse and other campaigners launched waves of leaflets and picketed at and around cinemas that showed the film, a move that was only felt to have ironically boosted the publicity.[citation needed] Leaflets arguing against the film's representation of the New Testament (for example, suggesting that the Wise Men would not have approached the wrong stable as they do in the opening of the film) were documented in Robert Hewison's book Monty Python: The Case Against.

One of the most controversial scenes was the film's ending: Brian's crucifixion. Many Christian protestors said that it was mocking Jesus's suffering by turning it into a "Jolly Boys Outing" (such as when Mr Cheeky turns to Brian and says: "See, It's not so bad when you get up here"), capped by Brian's fellow sufferers suddenly bursting into song; director Terry Jones issued the following riposte to this criticism: "Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly".[5]

Another argument was that crucifixion was a standard form of execution in ancient times and not just one especially reserved for Jesus (a point proven by the Bible itself, with the mentioned presence of the two thieves crucified next to him). The Pythons often prided themselves on the depths of the historical research they had taken before writing the script. They all believe that, as a consequence, the film portrays 1st century Judea more accurately than actual Biblical epics, with its focus centred more on the average person of the era.

Shortly after the film was released, Cleese and Palin engaged in a what would become an infamous debate on the BBC2 discussion programme Friday Night, Saturday Morning, in which Malcolm Muggeridge and Mervyn Stockwood, the Bishop of Southwark, put the case against the film. Muggeridge and the Bishop had arrived 15 minutes late to see a screening of the picture prior to the debate, missing the establishing scenes which demonstrated that Brian and Jesus were two different characters, and hence contended that it was a send-up of Christ himself. [7] Both Pythons later felt that there had been a strange role reversal in the manner of the debate, with two young upstart comedians attempting to make serious, well-researched points, while the establishment figures engaged in cheap jibes and point scoring. They also expressed disappointment in Muggeridge, who all in Python had previously respected as a satirist. Cleese expressed that his reputation had "plummeted" in his eyes, while Palin commented that, "He was just being Muggeridge, preferring to have a very strong contrary opinion as opposed to none at all". [7] Muggeridge's verdict on the film (or at least, what he'd seen of it) was that it was "Such a tenth-rate film that it couldn't possibly destroy anyone's genuine faith".

The Pythons unanimously deny that they were ever out to destroy people's faiths. On the DVD audio commentary, they contend that the film is heretical because it lampoons the practices of modern organised religion, but that it does not blasphemously lampoon the God that Christians and Jews worship. When Jesus does appear in the film (first, as a baby in the stable, and then later on the Mount, speaking the Beatitudes), he is played straight (by actor Kenneth Colley) and portrayed with respect. The music and lighting make it clear that there is a genuine aura around him on both occasions. The comedy begins when members of the crowd mishear his statements of peace, love and tolerance ("I think he said, 'blessed are the cheese makers'"). Importantly, he is distinct from the character of Brian, which is also evident in the scene where an annoying and ungrateful ex-leper pesters Brian for money, while moaning that since Jesus cured him, he has lost his source of income in the begging trade (referring to Jesus as a "bloody do-gooder").

Not that the Pythons all agree on the definition of the movie's tone. There was a brief exchange that occurred when the surviving members reunited in Aspen, Colorado, in 1998 for a show that was broadcast on HBO and has since become available on video. The appearance was billed as the "U.S. Comedy Arts Festival Tribute to Monty Python", although video releases have gone by varying titles, including "Monty Python Live at Aspen (1998)". The program mostly consists of an interview, on stage, by U.S. comedian Robert Klein. In the section where Life of Brian is being discussed, Terry Jones says, "I think the film is heretical, but it’s not blasphemous". Eric Idle can be heard to concur, adding, "It’s a heresy". However, John Cleese, disagreeing, counters, "I don’t think it’s a heresy. It's making fun of the way that people misunderstand the teaching". Jones responds, "Of course it's a heresy, John! It's attacking the Church! And that has to be heretical". Cleese replies, "No, it's not attacking the Church, necessarily. It's about people who cannot agree with each other".

The film continues to cause controversy; in February 2007 the Church of St Thomas the Martyr in Newcastle upon Tyne held a public screening in the church itself, with song-sheets, organ accompaniment, stewards in costume and false beards for female members of the audience (alluding to an early scene where a group of women disguise themselves as men so that they are able to take part in a stoning). Although the screening was a sell-out, some Christian groups, notably the ultra-conservative Christian Voice, were highly critical of the decision to allow the screening to go ahead. The Revd. Jonathan Adams, one of the church's clergy, defended his taste in comedy, saying that it did not mock Jesus, and that it raised important issues about the hypocrisy and stupidity that can affect religion. However, Stephen Green, head of the group, insisted that, "You don't promote Christ to the community by taking the mick out of Him".[13] Again on the film's DVD commentary, Cleese also spoke up for religious people who have come forward and congratulated him and his colleagues on the film's highlighting of double standards among purported followers of their own faith. [7]

Toto · 08-10-2008, 08:45 PM

The above appears to be copied and pasted from wikipedia.

Pete, you have been suggesting that the apocrypha were religious satire for some time now, but you need to do something to develop the thesis.

It is not inherently impossible, but so far there is no evidence or even a theoretical framework.

The alternative theory is that the aprocrypha were popular imaginative literature, just a little too imaginative for the orthodox. Why do you reject this?

Littlejohn · 08-11-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Toto has written:

The alternative theory is that the aprocrypha were popular imaginative literature, just a little too imaginative for the orthodox. Why do you reject this?

In doing an average between eresiologi of the first four centuries, there were from 70 to 80 (or perhaps even longer) gnostic sects.

Now, in the face of these numbers, we only have a sect that depart significantly from the doctrines of these gnostic sects : THE CATHOLIC ONE! (or Catholic-Orthodox). It is reasonably possible, in the face of such evidence, accept the absurd (because of what it is) that only the "sect" Catholic narrated the truth about Jesus of Nazareth? ... Yet, the gnostic tracks are more than evident in the same canonical gospels. What little we have of Papia (*) is enough to make us understand that the famous sayings of Jesus, those collected by the TRUE Matthew, others were not that esoteric sayings. The author of the fragment known as "Prologue Antimarcionite", of the second century, citing he Papia says: [b ]".... what wrote on esoterics "[/ b]. You can still have doubts? .. You can still reject the historical truth that Jesus was a gnostic and NOT a Catholic Orthodox? ..

______________________

Note:

(*) - Certainly an "uncomfortable" writer, possibly belonging to the area "ebionite-jesuan" (there was also another "ebionite-Johannine" or "ebionite-jacobite", having been James the Just the heir of John the Baptist), then, after his death, was "pulled by the hair" in Catholic-Orthodox area. It may seem incredible, but this "escamotage" was applied with much frequency also by forger founders. The greatest work of Papia, "Explanation of Oracles of Jesus" it has had a certain spread and this it is understands by the patristic comments. Is it 'possible that this work has not remained track, if it had been a harmless work? .. I think it is very unlikely.

Littlejohn

_____________

all the material posted by Littlejohn in this forum of Infidels.org and in others forums must be deemed in all respects copyright©
.

mountainman · 08-11-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The above appears to be copied and pasted from wikipedia.

Pete, you have been suggesting that the apocrypha were religious satire for some time now, but you need to do something to develop the thesis.

Thanks for your patience on this issue. AFAIK the thesis that at least one of the new testament apochryphal literature is perceivable as a parody or a satire is already "out there" in DeConick on the gJudas. According to the horses mouth so to speak, the National Geographic Article gJUDAS.

Certainly the article presents opposing assessments to that of Decconick, but to defend myself in this thread I would like to examine the words that are attributable to DeConick in this article:

Quote:

Satire?

DeConick said she believes the gospel should be seen as a parody.

"It's certainly satire. [In the Gospel of Judas]
Jesus is always mocking the disciples,
who are characterized as faithless and ignorant,"
she said.

"The author uses humor in a very subversive way
in order to criticize and correct apostolic Christianity."

These are 3 key DeConick phrases to consider in this thread.

1) Jesus "mocks the apostles"
2) Apostles characterized as "faithless and ignorant"
3) "Humor used to criticize and correct apostolic Christianity"

I have been saying this for some time about the Acts of Philip for example.

IMO it is possible that the bulk of the corpus of non canonical literature may be so classified in its primitive state, which in many cases is not the greek or the latin but the coptic and/or the syriac in which language it was preserved against the eyes of the ascendancy of the christian ministry of the fourth century --- over the top of the "pagans" (the real gnostics). Thus I seek dialogue on the feasibility that the authors of these non canonical texts were in fact non christians writing parody against the implementation of christianity under Constantine and his descendants. Wise and clever in disputation was the resistance.

We must understand that the old business of doing business in the temples was prohibited by Constantine with effect from the year 324 CE and he enforced this and other prohibitions by means of his army. What were the indigenous gnostic hellenic priesthoods (such as the Healer Ascelpius) to do? Where were they to go on that cold day at Nicaea?

They went to their pens and inkwells since their swords were of no use against the boss.

Quote:

It is not inherently impossible, but so far there is no evidence or even a theoretical framework.

Framework A:

325: Constantine publishes and promotes "The Christian Bible"
331: Lavish publication of "the canon stories"
325-425: A century of polemic, parody, satire against the canon stories
331: Constantine's Nasty Letter to Arius
491: Decretum Gelasianum - list of BANNED BOOKS

Simplistic? YES. But it should serve as a Framework A.

Quote:

The alternative theory is that the aprocrypha were popular imaginative literature, just a little too imaginative for the orthodox. Why do you reject this?

I dont necessarily reject this. The parody and satire was imaginative. Perhapos a classic example in my instance here is the satire written by the emperor Julian in the fourth century, called The Caesars in which Constantine and Clerk Jesus Kent make an appearance together in the climactic conclusion to a well written satire.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 08-11-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Toto has written:

The alternative theory is that the aprocrypha were popular imaginative literature, just a little too imaginative for the orthodox. Why do you reject this?

In doing an average between eresiologi of the first four centuries, there were from 70 to 80 (or perhaps even longer) gnostic sects.

Hi Littlejohn,

The gnostic sects IMO were alive and well in the East under Lucinius whom Constantine had stranged (against his word) sometime in the year 324 CE. I have no doubt that much pagan and gnostic wisdom sayings were preserved in the new testament literature, both in the canon and outside of it, however I am asking the question as to whether Eusebius actually assembled the new testament from "the available whole cloth" at that time in history. We have ample evidence of hellenic "gnosticism" before any christianity. It is only Eusebius who asserts that there once were "gnostic christians". And I cannot find any independent evidence to substantiate Eusesbius' claim about there being "christian gnostics" extant, but I have determined there to be a comparitively huge amount of monumental evidence for other cults such as the large one of the healer Ascelpius, for example. (See link in above post to Toto).

Quote:

Now, in the face of these numbers, we only have a sect that depart significantly from the doctrines of these gnostic sects : THE CATHOLIC ONE! (or Catholic-Orthodox).

The question is when it commenced business. It has been hitherto presumed to have opened the doors in the first century, but maybe it did not. Just maybe in fact christianity only started business in the court of the emperor Constantine when he moved in to Rome and the role of Pontifex Maximus. Of course everyone knows that the council of Antioch and the council of Nicaea were used as staging exercises for the implementation of Constantine's new and strange Roman religion of the universe (inside the Hubble Limit). At that stage and ever since the authodox are politically equated and associated with the tax-exempt (class). Constantine had to prohibit clever pagans from starting their own christian churches. It was a free-for-all at one stage.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 08-12-2008, 06:30 PM

An interesting article that may inspire some comment as to the correlation extant between the use of the pen of a parodist against the regime of a military despot in a resistance mode.

Humour and Play-Fullness -
Essential integrative processes in governance, religion and transdisciplinarity.

Quote:

Seriousness and humourlessness

The argument here is, if humour is so significant to parliamentary debate, why does none of this humour translate, in any way, into the legislation produced by such bodies? Why is the product of such debates so humourless -- inherently boring to many?

This argument is supported from an unsuspected source, namely copyright law. As recorded by Patti Waldmeir (Parody in humourless jeopardy, Financial Times, 27 April 2005):

If the point of law is to tame the state of nature, the point of copyright law, surely, is to make it fun to live there. Copyright law is not just about money -- it is about creating the things that make life worth living. One of those things is parody, a known antidote to modern life. But now US copyright owners seem intent on creating a vast new humour-free zone in America, by pursuing parodists through the courts. Each of the last two presidential elections spawned a big anti-parody lawsuit, but the phenomenon is not just limited to political jokesters: the sense of humour failure on the part of copyright owners has hit literary parodists as well.

During the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia in 1989 humour was used to attack the Communist party leadership. Commenting on the humourless British elections of 2005, Ukrainian novelist Andrey Kurkov (Is it time for a British revolution? Guardian, 26 April 2005) argues, in the light of the Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" in 2004-5, that:

The Germans never laughed at Hitler and neither did the Soviet people laugh at Stalin... More recently all Ukraine laughed at outgoing president Leonid Kuchma. It was precisely humour that won the day in the Ukrainian presidential elections last year.

Political satire, hard-hitting, witty leaflets and computer animations which parodied Ukrainian political life played a role in the eventual outcome that has yet to be properly evaluated.

...[trimmed]...

Dictators and tyrants are typically described as humourless. Conrad Hyers (Holy Laughter, 1969) says, "A common trait of dictators, revolutionaries, and ecclesiastical authoritarians alike is the refusal to laugh at themselves or permit others to laugh at them." In a poem, Volodimir Barabash (Humour can be Divine) goes further, making the point that: "Dictators build their strength upon / The people who are humourless".

As argued by Simon Barnes (The Times, 7 April 1999):

But so much of daily life is organised by the conspiracies of the jokeless: the dehumanisers, those who dread perspective, balance, thought. Lord deliver us from the humourless.... The humourless always win.

I suspect the more appropriate term might be more Roman, something like gravitas and with this is mind I wish to state that the bolding in the above article is mine. The complete article is quite interesting. I hope there are some open minds out there somewhere. Could Philip understand Greek or Roman? Could Peter remeber his own name? Why did the apostles prostrate themselves and count themselves as eleven, when we know there were 12, yet the story is entitled Peter and the 12? Could the Apostles count? Could the apostles cast lots for the nations as did the roman soldiers for the raiment of Jesus? Did Jesus leave historical footprints? What does 21st century ancient historical scholarship think?

Did (his dearly beloved son) Crispus laugh at the Boss's new ideas c.324 CE?

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 08-15-2008, 04:56 AM

From "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" C14 dated 348 CE plus or minus 60 years. Note that the humor in parody relies on the use of phraseology:

Quote:

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

How did Peter know that his name was Peter?
The classic floating phaseology.
What was actually wrong with Peter?

I challenge anyone to take any of the verses in this Nag Hammadi tractate in which the author is talking about the actions of the christian apostles of the ministry as an example. All these verses the author writes about the apostles and their ineptitude, are polemical. Without exception.

Find me (any) one which you think is an innocent verse about the apostles in that tractate and I will show it to be consistent with a scathing parody of the then christian ministry and its "apostleship".

Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-15-2008, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

From "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" C14 dated 348 CE plus or minus 60 years. Note that the humor in parody relies on the use of phraseology:

Quote:

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

How did Peter know that his name was Peter?

Umm, Pete, your Coptic is as good as your Greek (and your German). In the Coptic text, the antecedent of "he" is not Peter.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 08-15-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

From "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" C14 dated 348 CE plus or minus 60 years. Note that the humor in parody relies on the use of phraseology:

How did Peter know that his name was Peter?

Umm, Pete, your Coptic is as good as your Greek (and your German). In the Coptic text, the antecedent of "he" is not Peter.

Quote:

THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY LIBRARY - The Nag Hammadi Library --- The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles ....

snip for bandwidth - consult the link

The author of this text IMO was both an non-christian allegorist and a non-christian porodist. Where else in the canon do we have the apostles prostrating themselves before Clerk Jesus Kent? And how many of them were there? The author infers 13 in the title and flatly states eleven in the text above. Could the apostles count to twelve?

Best wishes,

Pete

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2008, 08:45 PM	#63
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The above appears to be copied and pasted from wikipedia. Pete, you have been suggesting that the apocrypha were religious satire for some time now, but you need to do something to develop the thesis. It is not inherently impossible, but so far there is no evidence or even a theoretical framework. The alternative theory is that the aprocrypha were popular imaginative literature, just a little too imaginative for the orthodox. Why do you reject this?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.