Good. But that just tells me that it is a mixture of prose and verse. How else does it distinguish itself, if it does, from Roman Satire?
BTW, did you have access to all of the JSTOR article?[/QUOTE]
I do. Julian appears to be validly enrolled amongst the satirists of antiquity.
And it appears to answer your earlier question ....
Even assuming that this work (known as the Symposium or the Kronia and best read here) was known and was recognized as satire (was it? By whom in the ancient world? Does any authority on Greco-Roman satire claim it to be such? If so, who [names, please!] and most importantly, why do they do so?) ...
We have yet to discuss the fact that both the Emperor Julian and the authors of many of the non canonical acts and gospels appear to have satirized the figure of Jesus.
As a simple signature for satire, comedy, humour and laughter come before the formal, literary, metrical, stylistic, and linguistic analyses
However my point is that, if one has the capacity to entertain a little laugh for Jesus, then one might expect that people in the 4th century could have done precisely the same thing out of basic human nature. The conditional here is that one has the capacity to entertain a little laugh for Jesus. This capacity has been thrashed out of the basic human nature by Draconian Blasphemy laws that seem to have been in place since the 4th century and the rule of Constantine until only a century or so ago.
What you Jeffrey Gibson do not seem to understand is the basic notion that the common people did not have to understand the formal, literary, metrical, stylistic, and linguistic characteristics of a satire to laugh at it. They laughed because it they found the story to be funny.
Hence for the common people, the presence of jokes in the work takes precedence over the presence of the formal, literary, metrical, stylistic, and linguistic characteristics of the work.
Now to return to the OP, at post #3 there is listed, amongst other categories as explained, what might be termed "gnostic jokes".
Why for heaven's sake does an apostle resurrect a smoked fish, command bedbugs, convert talking lions or forever look for Jesus's footprint and fail to find it?
Why for heaven's sake is Jesus the pilot of a water taxi service for the apostles in their bid to convert "The Land of the Cannibals"?
Why for heaven's sake does Peter physically pass a camel through the eye of a needle (and back again)?
Why for heaven's sake does the electric chair of antiquity, the cross, amble out of the tomb after Jesus and communicate with God?
Why for heaven's sake do loveable apostles physically destroy pagan temples?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful
The way I see it comedy was embedded in some gnostic acts etc purposefully.
It was laughed at by the common people, and the wise authors (who parodied the canon) can take the credit.
But to the rulers in charge of the Canonical Holy Writ this may be seen as a form of political satire.
Therefore the rulers created and operate "Blasphemy Laws" to condition the minds of the common people and the unwise authors.
IMO while for some the remnants of these are still present in conditioned thinking, for other human beings "Blasphemy Laws" are still operative..
Îµá½Î´Î±Î¹Î¼Î¿Î½Î¯Î± | eudaimonia