Toto

NT Pod 40: "Teeth will be provided": the joke, the hoax, the story

"Teeth will be provided" is the punchline of a number of jokes, which can be traced back to 19th century British writers.

Toto

"shaggy dog story"

Teeth will be provided - Metzger's story

In short, this has nothing to do with the gnostic gospels. It is how Biblical scholars play pranks on each other.

mountainman

Thanks for the background research and references Toto.

I was aware that this "Amusing Agraphon" could have been an elaborate hoax, but not the details of the arguments against authenticity. It seems to share a status very similar to "Secret Mark". But why are such pranks sensational? And why are they openly described as "humorous"? Could it be that Jesus is being used to make people laugh? Is it polemic to engage humor? Was Jesus humorous? Do the canonical books reveal a humorless Jesus? Or alternatively, was there a time prior to the 20th century that the various christian churches presented a humorless Jesus, and what was their inspiration for this?

What is at the basis of the Biblical scholars prank playing? A slight irreverence for a "gnashingly" serious Jesus or what? Isn't this a form of polemic directed against seriousness? It may have been a serious offence a century earlier. Church business was supposed to be serious business.

The authors of the Gnostics Acts and Gospels may be accurately described also as educated Biblical scholars of the highest order playing pranks on the Canonical series of books, and their orthodox Leaders and the orthodox followers. What's the difference, with and without the "hoax status"? We do know that a major proportion of really interesting "Hoax Gospels and Acts" were published in the 4th century for example. These questions are entirely independent of the question as to whether the canon itself is a "hoax" or indeed is a genuine collection of obscure preNicaean canonical books.

What is the polemic undercurrent in the Nag Hammadi codices?
In how many of these texts does Jesus laugh for example?

Toto

Stephen Carlson thought it was a similar phenomenon. Others disagree.

That's interesting speculation, but if you look at the history of this joke, the punch line is usually delivered by a preacher, not Jesus. The 20th century hoax involved putting the words in Jesus' mouth.

The gnostic gospels may have had a sense of humor, but this particular hoax is too far removed from them.

Goodacre traces the joke to Annie Besant in the 19th century, an associate of Madame Blavatsky. In the 19th century, preachers were often the object of jokes, especially by religious dissidents.

Look up the history of the term "Hokey Pokey."

Somehow the word "prank" doesn't seem to fit. When you pull a prank, you are doing a stunt for entertainment purposes, and part of the prank is usually letting the victim know that they have been "had."

mountainman

Hi Toto,

The canonical books appear (to me anyway) as entirely humorless. A polemic of humor appears to be first introduced in the non canonical books, and this can serve in general to differentiate both groups of texts. This is more of an observation that a speculation. Or can you provide examples to the contrary? I am not saying that all non canonical books are entirely humorous, only that many of them present utterly absurd events, and treat irreverently the subject matter treated with an absolute seriousness by the canonical books.



I can think of two 4th century examples from Nag Hammadi where Jesus is presented as laughing at the cricifixion event, and saying outrageous things, and one 4th century example where Jesus is presented as delivering as a punchline, the question to his petitioning apostles .... "Why are you asking me?". (See below).


People were legally executed for denying the Christian Holy Trinity not to much earlier, so we must expect that the church held a powerful control over the public morality of laughing at Jesus and the Apostles. Obviously, the polemic was focussed on the delegates of the church by the religious dissidents. It's as though the "pressure of the church" has been slowly lifted over the decades between the 19th and the 21st century. Before this time the church was run by the iron fist of those who fought to control it from within. Damasius battled his way to be Bishop of Rome. It was serious business since at least then until recent times.

My claim is that the same happened in the 4th century, when the delegates of the state christian church took control of the religious environment that had previously been traditionally inhabited by Panhellenic priests, philosophers, academics, etc.

The object of the non canonical jokes were the canonical figures - Jesus and the Apostles and the "Christian Church" of that specific historical epoch.


In this case however, my argument is that the victim was Constantine and his Christian State monotheistic church and his Constantine Bible. The prank was essentially a reaction to a humorless story about (a new) god. It may have been just that - a stunt for entertainment purposes in the realm of codex technology and the Greek theatres (the hollywood of antiquity).


Well that's where we appear for the moment to disagree. I can think of three examples from Nag Hammadi:

In the NHC 7.3 Apocalypse of Peter, the author writes: "The Bishops are dry canals". Jesus is presented as laughing about the whole situation ... "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus."

In the NHC 7.2 Second Treatise of the Great Seth, deemed docetic, Jesus does not die on the cross, but laughs. (Jesus as purported narrator). "we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant, but also by those who think that they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals. They persecuted those who have been liberated by me, since they hate them..."

In the Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC 8.2), a Gnostic Sermon on the Mount of Olives is presented with a certain amount of melodrama. The apostles gather together, and treck to the summit of the Mount of Olives, where they persistently petition for the appearance of Jesus. "Then a great light appeared so that the mountains shone from the sight of him who had appeared. And a voice called out to them saying,

"Listen to my words that I may speak to you.

"Why are you asking me?"

In a comparitive sense I put these forward as examples of polemic to be found placed into the mouth of Jesus in antiquity. They are sort of like serious "pranks", and they were obviously viewed as such by the emperors and the orthodox at that specific epoch when they appeared in Greek, and when they were circulated among the populace, and possibly performed "in the theatres of the unbelievers.".



On Agraphons

It's quite interesting to note here that the technical definition of such "Amusing Agraphons" ("Sayings of Jesus outside of the Bible") purposefully excludes the sayings of Jesus that appear in the non canonical texts. The Agraphons by defintion can only come from orthodox sources - it would appear. It seems reasonable to therefore associate the "unofficial" non canonical agraphons as the "heretical agraphons" or the "prank agraphons".


Best wishes


Pete

aa5874

Well, that is NOT the case at all.

The documents that were NOT BURNT show that Constantine was NOT the founder of Christianity.

The very documents that were LEFT by the Church itself that is FILLED with BOGUS information do ACTUALLY contain enough information for us to RECONSTRUCT the history of the Jesus story.

"Church History" is probably the SINGLE MOST significant document to UNRAVEL the fraud of the Church under Constantine.

"Church History" attributed to Eusebius contains many of the VITAL CLUES or CODES to "DECIPHER" the Jesus story.

avi

Thank you for correcting me, aa5874.

I should have written:
"...by the founder of Christianity, as we know it, today."

Well, you may well be correct, in that assessment.

My opinion is rather different. I don't respect Eusebius' writing. I don't know which parts of his Ecclesiastical history are accurate, which fantasy, which parts largely accurate with a tiny bit of added hyperbole, and which parts somewhat accurate with a great deal of added hyperbole.

I don't know which of his sources were genuine, which were already interpolated before they reached his hands, and which were definitely interpolated after leaving his bureau, en route to the copying centers, for mass distribution.

Maybe it is my ignorance here, which is writing, not my knowledge. Maybe a skillful historian can clearly glean nuggets of genuine history from Eusebius' original text (does his original, untainted by subsequent generations of politically minded clerics, Greek text exist somewhere?--how do we know of its authenticity?). I cannot. I lack the skill to read, even in English, let alone ancient, Koine Greek, two paragraphs, and decipher which paragraph is authentic, accurate, and unadulterated text, straight from the pen of Eusebius' original source, "Origen", for example, and which represents pure fiction, created by Eusebius, or one of his associates, working under his command, as authorized by Lord Constantine.

avi

mountainman

Thanks for your comments aa5874,

It seems to me that there are at least two Jesus stories: the canonical Jesus story and the non canonical jesus story. I dont think they are the same story myself. The church burnt the non canonical stories for some reason.

A general knowledge of the mockumentary called the "Historia Augusta" would assist this investigation.

The canonical jesus story and the gnostic jesus story are not the same. They need to be UNRAVELLED. How do you suggest this be approached?


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Hi avi,

I agree with you in regard to the sources for the canonical jesus story. It is a case of IN-EUSEBIUS-WE-TRUST, and I dont.

One of the reasons that I find the non canonical Jesus story fascinating is that we can be reasonably sure that Eusebius had no real control over either it or its sources and authors. They were described as the heretics, but who were they, when did they write, why did they write, etc, etc, etc?

The canonical story of Jesus is an utterly humorless affair. The noncanonical story of Jesus has some humorous episodes. The stories are related but they are not the same. We really need to unravel one set of stories from the other.


Best wishes,


Pete