List of Early Writers Who Could Have Mentioned Jesus Christ

[Brainache]

I think you might be reading something into the comments that aren't there. I'm not seeing any adversarial behaviour. Just critiques delivered in a polite way.



This last sentence could also be taken to mean that you do not wish to engage anyone who makes remarks critical of your assertions that you perceive to be negative?

I agree with this.

I don't see how your list supports a purely celestial Jesus.
Yes, those authors could all have mentioned Jesus if he had been a man, but they could also have mentioned him if he had always been a mythical creature. The fact that they did not does not prove anything either way. Just that he wasn't well known or important enough.
Whether he was either a Mithras-like mystery cult deity, or a traveling Jewish rabbi that inspired several groups of weirdos cannot be derived from his absence in historical sources.

I also agree with this...

G'day G'day G'day...

 

[Mcreal]

Because as far as I understand the MJ idea, it requires that the first followers of Jesus (who were indeed 2nd Temple Jews) believed that their Messiah only existed in some ethereal celestial realm. As far as I can tell, 2nd temple Jews had no such belief in incorporeal saviours.

The notion of the first followers of Jesus is a hard one to pin down, and the assumption or assertion that they were 2nd Temple Jews seems too rigid.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Brainache and all

What makes you think Enoch was "heavenly"?

Wow.
You really don't know that Enoch was a heavenly man ?

I see you have conspicuously ignored the examples of CHRISTIANS who believed in an INCORPOREAL Jesus - why is that ?

I see you conspicuously ignored my comments about 'kata sarka'.

Instead you're back to snipe at minor things, but ignore the issues.

Sorry Brainache, you are not well informed on this subject, and you are apparently not interested in debate and discussion on the real issues.

Please lift your game.


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Elagabalus and all

I think you might be reading something into the comments that aren't there. I'm not seeing any adversarial behaviour. Just critiques delivered in a polite way.

Brainache is not being polite - you know it, I know it, Brainache knows it.

I am a polite and friendly mature gentleman - I am here for polite and friendly mature discussion.


Kapyong

 

[Mcreal]

I'm not seeing any adversarial behaviour. Just critiques delivered in a polite way.

I wonder about adversary through ignoring points raise, or a closed-mind that gives the impression of adversary.

 

[vridar]

Cherry picking? The whole sentence reads: " 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons." ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+4&version=ESV )

The Greek is from ginomai meaning "to become, to arise, to occur, to come into existence, to be created." Gal 4:4 avoids the use of the normal word for "born", "gennao". The first evidence of knowledge of this verse emerged in the context of ideological wars with docetics. Moreover, the rest of Galatians only knows of Jesus as a spirit being who inhabits and transforms other (e.g. Paul's) human bodies.

Bart Ehrman once went to pains to explain all of this in his 1993 Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. He appears to have forgotten such basics when it's time to argue with mythicists who actually read his earlier works.

 

[Brainache]

Gday Brainache and all




Wow.
You really don't know that Enoch was a heavenly man ?

I know that he was supposedly "taken up" by god and therefore didn't die (according to the story), but I'm pretty sure that being descended from Adam (again, according to the story) means that he was a human being living on Earth. From Wiki:

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch;[1] Ge'ez: መጽሐፈ ሄኖክ mätṣḥäfä henok) is an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed by tradition to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, although modern scholars estimate the older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

Are you saying that Noah's great grandad was believed to be an incorporeal "heavenly" spirit?

I see you have conspicuously ignored the examples of CHRISTIANS who believed in an INCORPOREAL Jesus - why is that ?

Because they are part of a later tradition, not what I was asking for. I was asking for an example of 2nd Temple Judaism. AFAIK Carrier says that there was a pre-existing belief in an incorporeal "Messiah", I'm looking for an example of that.

Lets take a closer look at these "Docetics" then:

Docetism, (from Greek dokein, “to seem”), Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Docetism

So they don't seem to be what you claim. They don't believe Jesus was an incorporeal mythical being, they believe that he walked around down here on earth in a body that was made of Divine Substance, rather than the imperfect base material that normal people are made from. Just as I said about the Gnostics.

I see you conspicuously ignored my comments about 'kata sarka'.

I'm not a Scholar of ancient Greek. I haven't looked into it yet, but I will if you think the result will be any different to any of your other claims which have turned out to be totally wrong...

Instead you're back to snipe at minor things, but ignore the issues.

I can't help but notice that you ignored almost all of my post and chose to respond to a single line out of many. Please feel free to respond to the rest any time you feel up to it.

Sorry Brainache, you are not well informed on this subject, and you are apparently not interested in debate and discussion on the real issues.

Please lift your game.

Lets just leave out the personal insults, OK?

Please address all of the points raised in recent posts, or at least acknowledge them.

 

[Brainache]

The notion of the first followers of Jesus is a hard one to pin down, and the assumption or assertion that they were 2nd Temple Jews seems too rigid.

I'm just working from the evidence in the letters of Paul where he talks about the apostles in Jerusalem who were part of the movement before he joined it. Those "Super Apostles" who were sending people out to Paul's "flock" and telling them they should be circumcised and observe food purity rules.

If they weren't Jewish, what were they?

 

[Brainache]

Gday Elagabalus and all




Brainache is not being polite - you know it, I know it, Brainache knows it.

I am a polite and friendly mature gentleman - I am here for polite and friendly mature discussion.


Kapyong

I'm here for a discussion. I haven't insulted you, or anyone else. If you see disagreement as insult, that is not my problem.

Please stop making these personal attacks and just deal with the subject at hand.

 

[Mcreal]

I'm just working from the evidence in the letters of Paul where he talks about the apostles in Jerusalem who were part of the movement before he joined it. Those "Super Apostles" who were sending people out to Paul's "flock" and telling them they should be circumcised and observe food purity rules.

If they weren't Jewish, what were they?

I won't be drawn into this kind of discussion on this thread as I think it is off-topic.

This is a thread about 'Early Writers Who Could Have Mentioned Jesus Christ'.

You showed your closed-mindedness & belligerence to the concept of the thread with your opening line -

OK. I haven't read all of your list, but I will dip my oar into this thread by posting the usual reply to lists such as this:

 

[Brainache]

I won't be drawn into this kind of discussion on this thread as I think it is off-topic.

This is a thread about 'Early Writers Who Could Have Mentioned Jesus Christ'.

You showed your closed-mindedness & belligerence to the concept of the thread with your opening line -

Please stop with the personal attacks.

I will just point out that Kapyong has posted variations of this list before and this one is extremely long. I don't see anything "belligerent" about taking a contrary stance in a debate. Nor is it closed minded to point out that this subject has been raised before and that it has been responded to before.

I take your point about being off-topic, so I won't pursue your response here. Feel free to address the point in the appropriate thread whenever you want.

 

[Mcreal]

I will just point out that Kapyong has posted variations of this list before and this one is extremely long ... this subject has been raised before and that it has been responded to before.

Those issues are beside the point.

This thread is current. It deserves comment on it, not about the issues you otherwise have.

 

[Brainache]

Those issues are beside the point.

This thread is current. It deserves comment on it, not about the issues you otherwise have.

First I am berated for "belligerence" because I commented on Kapyong's list. Now I have "issues" because I pointed out that my comments were relevant to the thread.

OK.

Please make a comment that isn't based on me. Make a comment about the subject of the thread...

Maybe you could start by giving readers your informed opinion on why you think the authors listed in Kapyong's opening posts should have mentioned Jesus.

 

[GDon]

Gday all

Thanks for your patience, everyone
That is my posts complete, feel free to discuss now ...

Note that I list fewer than Paulkovich. Some of his names were from 1st C. BCE not CE, and some were people who weren't really writers - such as Roman nobles who may have written a few letters.

Kapyong, that is a good list! But nearly all of them don't mention Christians, whom, even for mythicists, existed during the time that nearly all those writers in your list wrote their works.

I'm not meaning this as a "gotcha" question, but is there a reason why they might not have mentioned Christians, that can't also be applied to a mundane Jesus Christ?

 

[Kapyong]

GDay GDon

Kapyong, that is a good list!

Thanks I appreciate that. Actually, as Brainache noted, I published a similar list years ago - it was my very first foray into the subject, because I saw Remsberg's list and thought it was crap, having no dates and comments.

My first list classed the writers into Shoulda, Coulda, Wouldna - mention Jesus.
Recently I saw Paulkovich's list - 127 writers !
I checked them all - a lot of dross.

This time I simply listed facts (with my own ratings, that could be argued though) about books, with only ONE claim :

• they COULD have mentioned Jesus.

I made NO claims here about the historicity of Jesus based on this list - but predictably, the critics didn't notice that

But nearly all of them don't mention Christians, whom, even for mythicists, existed during the time that nearly all those writers in your list wrote their works.
I'm not meaning this as a "gotcha" question, but is there a reason why they might not have mentioned Christians, that can't also be applied to a mundane Jesus Christ?

Well, firstly, as Mcreal reminded me - shouldn't it be 'Jewish followers of Jesus' or some such ?

When did JewsForJesus become 'Christians' ?
1 Clement, Acts, 1 Peter ...

He cited this interesting paper, I haven't read it yet, but looks very interesting :
https://www.academia.edu/2123957/Jewish_Followers_of_Jesus_and_the_Bar_Kokhba_Revolt_Re-examining_the_Christian_Sources

So, if the term 'Christians' only became known, say, around the turn of the century - that matches the evidence of the first mentions of the term - e.g. Pliny and Tacitus.

That still leaves many writers who could have mentioned Christians but did not, yes. I have no explanation for why they wouldn't. But I have backed off from making firm claims - at this point, I just want to make the best list


Kapyong

 

[Kapyong]

Gday Brainache and all

Maybe you could start by giving readers your informed opinion on why you think the authors listed in Kapyong's opening posts should have mentioned Jesus.

See ?
There's the problem.

Mcreal never claimed that they SHOULD.
No-one here claimed that they SHOULD.
I did not claim that they SHOULD.

You do not appear interested in discussing the actual topic - instead you show all the classic signs of emo bashing mythicists.


Kapyong

 

[Brainache]

Gday Brainache and all




See ?
There's the problem.

Mcreal never claimed that they SHOULD.
No-one here claimed that they SHOULD.
I did not claim that they SHOULD.

You do not appear interested in discussing the actual topic - instead you show all the classic signs of emo bashing mythicists.


Kapyong

I will repeat that I haven't "bashed" anyone, emo or otherwise.

If you don't think those writers should have mentioned a historical Jesus, what is the point of listing them?

Feel free to respond to any of my actual points from the last few pages when you get a chance...

 

[Mcreal]

If you don't think those writers should have mentioned a historical Jesus, what is the point of listing them?

Are you serious?

 

[Mcreal]

Kapyong, that is a good list! But nearly all of them don't mention Christians, whom, even for mythicists, existed during the time that nearly all those writers in your list wrote their works.

I'm not meaning this as a "gotcha" question, but is there a reason why they might not have mentioned Christians, that can't also be applied to a mundane Jesus Christ?

GDay GDon
Well, firstly, as Mcreal reminded me - shouldn't it be 'Jewish followers of Jesus' or some such ?

When did Jews-For-Jesus become 'Christians' ?
1 Clement, Acts, 1 Peter ...

He cited this interesting paper, I haven't read it yet, but looks very interesting :
https://www.academia.edu/2123957/Jewish_Followers_of_Jesus_and_the_Bar_Kokhba_Revolt_Re-examining_the_Christian_Sources

So, if the term 'Christians' only became known, say, around the turn of the century - that matches the evidence of the first mentions of the term - e.g. Pliny and Tacitus.

That still leaves many writers who could have mentioned Christians but did not, yes. I have no explanation for why they wouldn't. But I have backed off from making firm claims - at this point, I just want to make the best list

Kapyong

My point was that the author of that paper was "abandoning the use of the problematic term 'Jewish Christians'” and preferring to using the phrase “Jewish followers of Jesus” -

"By employing the phrase “Jewish followers of Jesus,” I am following the lead of Boyarin (2009), who urges abandoning the use of the problematic term 'Jewish Christians'.”

https://www.academia.edu/2123957/Je...hba_Revolt_Re-examining_the_Christian_Sources

citing -
Boyarin, D (2009) 'Rethinking Jewish Christianity: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category' Jewish Quarterly Rev 99: 7–36

It's almost like historians are withdrawing claims for Christians in the first century.

Kapyong's point that " 'Christians' only became known, say, around the turn of the century [and] that matches the evidence of the first mentions [or use] of the term - e.g. Pliny and Tacitus" is a good one.

 

[vridar]

If you don't think those writers should have mentioned a historical Jesus, what is the point of listing them?

I for one found the list interesting and worth bookmarking for potential future use. I noticed that the words "could" and "would" are used but never "should" but what I found most interesting was the categorization of them with the 5 letter coding.

I see the list of benefit to anyone interested in exploring the question of Christian origins and wanting to have some idea of the wider backdrop to the question.

I don't know why anyone would seem to assume that such a list must be motivated by a puerile apologetic agenda of any sort unless they believe anyone arguing against the historicity of Jesus is by definition wilfully agenda-driven in all of their methods. (That's why your comments are being interpreted a "bashing" -- the assumption that the question implies betrays the bashing tone.)

The list is surely of use to all sides of the discussion, don't you think? Did you see the coding system?