An interesting article entitled: Are Religion and Satire Mutual Taboos - A Comment on the Life of Brian www.koed.hu/mozaik14/peter.pdf
The author writes that "writing or performing a satire is one of the most difficult and serious actions an intellectual may do."
He also writes that "A good satire does not present people and stories in a paradoxical and funny way, but instead unveils an already-existing paradox."
IS SATIRE ABOUT LAUGHING?
Before going further, let us focus on what satire is. Most people mistakenly consider satire as an entertaining performance that makes fun of something else, often in a silly way. So, some subjects should not be fodder for satire: for example, religion, and in some countries, politicians.
On the contrary, to write or perform a satire is one of the most difficult and serious actions an intellectual may do. A true satire consists of the representation of reality in a way people may understand it better. The reaction of laughter provoked by this representation is the psychological defence of the viewer’s mind against the hardness of reality.
One example may help: Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Stanley KUBRICK, 1964) satirically presented the possibility of an atomic war. Those were hard years: the Cuban Missile Crisis has had been just resolved by establishing a direct telephone line (the red phone) between the White House and the Kremlin. In this famous movie, a mad U.S. Army officer organises the launch of atomic missiles at the USSR. The US president calls the Kremlin through the red phone in order to explain the accident. The phone call is hilarious: “Hello Dimitri, it is me … something happened? No, nothing worrying …” and so on.
The viewer laughs right from the beginning, but is left with a bitter smile at the end as World War III destroys the Earth. Dr. Strangelove does not tell a funny story, but rather makes a satire of the relief after the missile crisis. It is like saying, “There are thousands of atomic war heads around — is that a stupid red phone a serious solution?” A good satire does not present people and stories in a paradoxical and funny way, but instead unveils an already-existing paradox.
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
Religious satire is a form of satire targeted at religious beliefs.[1] From the earliest times, at least since the plays of Aristophanes, religion has been one of the three primary topics of literary satire, along with politics and sex.[2][3][4]
Satire which targets the clergy is a type of political satire, while religious satire is that which targets religious beliefs.
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently. This is found, for instance, in the Testimony of Truth,
the Apocalypse of Peter, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth,
the Acts of John, which take aim at apostolic Christians
and their practices and beliefs.
The Sethians were particularly good at making fun of
traditional biblical beliefs, especially when it came
to the Genesis story and their use of traditional verses like
"Besides me there is no god" by applying it to Ialdabaoth
and implying that this is the god that other Christians
ignorantly are worshiping.
I do not think of the Gospel of Judas as a parody in terms
of a modern comic skit or genre. I have never used it this
way, nor would I.
-- April Deconnick
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
I tend to be a serious reader and while I do have a sense of humor, I admit to being serious when talking religion.
Was satire in play in the gospel of Thomas with this?
"For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."
If not, what is your take on it?
Regards
DL
Not sure. It's possible. The Christian Religion was surely male dominated.
OTOH it's a sayings list, much like the "Sayings of Sextus", so its purpose may have been to preserve aphorisms.
the Acts of Thomas has some incidents that might be seen as a satirical take.
* The Apostles cast lots to convert the nations like the soldiers cast lots for the clothes at the crucifixion.
* Thomas draws the lot to go to India but refuses to go.
* Jesus appears and orders Thomas to go to India, but Thomas directly refuses Jesus command.
* As a result, Jesus sells Thomas in the slave market to an Indian traveller (and even gets a bill of sale).
* etc
Acts of John .. ....
* John follows Jesus around everywhere but cannot find a footprint.
* John tries to touch Jesus but finds an insubstantial body
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
I tend to be a serious reader and while I do have a sense of humor, I admit to being serious when talking religion.
Was satire in play in the gospel of Thomas with this?
"For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."
If not, what is your take on it?
Regards
DL
Not sure. It's possible. The Christian Religion was surely male dominated.
OTOH it's a sayings list, much like the "Sayings of Sextus", so its purpose may have been to preserve aphorisms.
the Acts of Thomas has some incidents that might be seen as a satirical take.
* The Apostles cast lots to convert the nations like the soldiers cast lots for the clothes at the crucifixion.
* Thomas draws the lot to go to India but refuses to go.
* Jesus appears and orders Thomas to go to India, but Thomas directly refuses Jesus command.
* As a result, Jesus sells Thomas in the slave market to an Indian traveller (and even gets a bill of sale).
* etc
Acts of John .. ....
* John follows Jesus around everywhere but cannot find a footprint.
* John tries to touch Jesus but finds an insubstantial body
You may have a point with your view that it preserved aphorism.
Gnostic Christians and Jews often played with scriptures to initiate debate on a different way to see the scriptures. Hence the many contradiction in scriptures. That worked well, seeing their myths as just that, myths, for a long time until evil literalism reared it's ugly Christian head. That is when the Christians started to kill all who did not want to think as they did. Many did not want to cripple their thinking ability.
To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]
