Questioning the historicity of Jesus c.325 CE?

[MrMacSon]

Bart is primarily a theologian; and a "biblical-scholar". He does not appear to understand principles of historiography or the Historical Method.

Well I am sure he knows this stuff but is pitching his arguments like a theologian from the pulpit to the converted.

He knows how to appeal to his audience and sell books by the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device ...

.... Contrast the following statement from Michael Grant:

• "This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all
  and is a myth. In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that
  Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by
  Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence ... Michael Grant, "Jesus", 1997, pp. 199–200.

It would be interesting to know how common that view was in ancient times; at various different times/centuries.

Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist,
and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction. In particular, his story was compared to
the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods."
Michael Grant, "Jesus", 1997, pp. 199–200.

"Pure fiction" may be a bit of a strawman, or disingenuous.

People 2-3 generations beyond the cementing of the notion "Jesus was real" would not know any different.
The development of the legend may have been very nebulous over quite a while (more than 2-3 generations; say 44-75 yrs)
.

[GakuseiDon]

Also to support Option 2, there is Plutarch in "Isis and Osiris", who discusses stories of the gods as symbols
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... is*/D.html

• It is impossible to conceive of these things as being gods in themselves; for God is not senseless nor inanimate nor subject to human control... Thus men make use of consecrated symbols, some employing symbols that are obscure, but others those that are clearer, in guiding the intelligence toward things divine, though not without a certain hazard. For some go completely astray and become engulfed in superstition; and others, while they fly from superstition as from a quagmire, on the other hand unwittingly fall, as it were, over a precipice into atheism.

Also, there is Plutarch's often quoted comment about the truthfulness of traditional tales:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... is*/A.html

• Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related. The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal's watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom,b since he distinguishes between what is friendly and what is hostile by his knowledge of the one and his ignorance of the other, as Plato remarks...
  
  If, then, you listen to the stories about the gods in this way, accepting them from those who interpret the story reverently and philosophically, and if you always perform and observe the established rites of worship, and believe that no sacrifice that you can offer, no deed that you may do will be more likely to find favour with the gods than your belief in their true nature, you may avoid superstition which is no less an evil than atheism.

[Leucius Charinus]

Thank you very much G'Don.

(1) Tatian, in his Address to the Greeks - heroes mentioned in poetry not existing
(2) Plutarch in "Isis and Osiris", discusses stories of the gods as symbols
(3) Plutarch's comment about the truthfulness of traditional tales

I appreciate your ability to turn up these sources related to the existence of this sceptical and critical thinking in antiquity.

Here the critical thinking is being applied to the extremely well known gods of the Graeco-Roman Empire.
Every man and his dog knew of Zeus and Apollo etc because prior to Nicaea their temples were ubiquitous in the empire.
Renditons of Homer and other material would have been routine at the local theatres. The pagans had their "Top 40".
Where did the "IS" Story fit in to the Top 40 of popularity?

I don't think it did.

The same cannot be said for the new god of Constantine called "IS" in the holy codex which Constantine widely published.
The pagans don't seem to have been too interested in the Jesus Story prior to its elevation to the purple.
And a good argument may be made IMHO that most of them had never before heard of the "IS" Story.
There is a big difference between being sceptical about one's familiar "gods" and being sceptical about a very "new and strange god".

Anyway thanks again for the sources. :)

[Leucius Charinus]

It would be interesting to know how common that view was in ancient times; at various different times/centuries.

Well most identify the presence of Docetism in the canonical letters of John warning about those "who refused to confess Jesus appeared in the flesh".
OTOH most also see instances of it in a selection of the heretical "gnostic gospels and acts".

It would be an interesting exercise to gather together all the so-called "Docetic references".
To this end check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism#T ... e_docetism

• Texts believed to include docetism
  
  Non-canonical Christian texts
  Gospel of Phillip
  Second Treatise of the Great Seth
  Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
  Gospel of Judas
  In the Contra epistulam fundamenti (Against the Fundamental Epistle), Augustine of Hippo makes reference to the Manichaeans believing that Jesus was Docetic.
  Gospel of Peter
  Acts of John

Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist,
and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction. In particular, his story was compared to
the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods."
Michael Grant, "Jesus", 1997, pp. 199–200.

"Pure fiction" may be a bit of a strawman, or disingenuous.

What do you mean by that Mac? Please expand.

People 2-3 generations beyond the cementing of the notion "Jesus was real" would not know any different.

That is around about what I would estimate. The chief authority cited by the bishops of the 4th and early 5th century are "The Three Hundred and Eighteen Nicaean Fathers". The chief authority amidst the 318 Nicaean fathers was the Emperor Constantine.

What I find disturbing is the material contained in Constantine's Oration at the Council of Antioch (prior to Nicaea).

Quite relevant to the OP is Constantine's warning that "Socrates critical questioning is a menace to the state".

[GakuseiDon]

I appreciate your ability to turn up these sources related to the existence of this sceptical and critical thinking in antiquity.

You're welcome! How they thought in those days is a very interesting topic to me. If I think of other texts that might be relevant, I'll add them.

There is a big difference between being sceptical about one's familiar "gods" and being sceptical about a very "new and strange god".

Can you expand on that? What is the big difference, in your view?

For skepticism on familiar and new gods, there is Lucian of Samosata.

From Lucian's "Zeus Tragoedus", a satire comprising a meeting of the gods, including Hermes, Hera, Zeus and Momus (the god of mockery):
http://lucianofsamosata.info/ZeusTragoe ... TDKPR.dpbs

• Zeus: You now know the occasion of this meeting — no light one, ye Gods, if you reflect how entirely our dignity, our revenue, our honour, depend on mankind. If they should accept as true either our absolute non-existence or, short of that, our indifference to them, farewell to our earthly sacrifices, attributes, honours; we shall sit starving and ineffectual in Heaven; our beloved feasts and assemblies, games and sacrifices, vigils and processions — all will be no more. So mighty is the issue; believe me, it behoves us all to search out salvation; and where lies salvation? In the victory and acceptance of Timocles, in laughter that shall drown the voice of Damis. For I doubt the unaided powers of Timocles, if our help be not accorded him.
  
  Hermes, make formal proclamation, and let the debate commence.
  
  Hermes: Hear, keep silence, clamour not. Of full and qualified Gods, speak who will. Why, what means this? Doth none rise? Cower ye confounded at these momentous tidings?
  
  Momus: Away, ye dull as earth, as water weak! But I could find plenty to say, Zeus, if free speech were granted me.
  
  Zeus: Speak, Momus, and fear not. You will use your freedom, surely, for the common good.
  
  Momus: Hear, then, ye Gods; for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. You must know, I foresaw all this clearly — our difficulty — the growth of these agitators; it is ourselves who are responsible for their impudence; I swear to you, we need not blame Epicurus nor his friends and successors, for the prevalence of these ideas. Why, what can one expect men to think, when they see all life topsy-turvy — the good neglected, pining in poverty, disease, and slavery, detestable scoundrels honoured, rolling in wealth, and ordering their betters about, temple-robbers undetected and unpunished, the innocent constantly crucified and bastinadoed? With this evidence before them, it is only natural they should conclude against our existence.

For skepticism regarding a new god, Lucian describes the rise and fall of Alexander the False Prophet and his snake god Glycon. From here:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucia ... xander.htm

• Well, upon invading his native land with all this pomp and circumstance after a long absence, Alexander was a man of mark and note, affecting as he did to have occasional fits of madness anti causing his mouth to fill with foam. This he easily managed by chewing the root of soapwort, the plant that dyers use; but to his fellow-countrymen even the foam seemed supernatural and awe-inspiring. Then, too, they had long ago prepared and fitted up a serpent’s head of linen, which had something of a human look, was all painted up, and appeared very lifelike. It would open and close its mouth by means of horsehairs, and a forked black tongue like a snake’s, also controlled by horsehairs, would dart out. Besides, the serpent from Pella was ready in advance and was being cared for at home, destined in due time to manifest himself to them and to take a part in their show—in fact, to be cast for the leading rôle.
  
  When at length it was time to begin, he contrived an ingenious ruse. Going at night to the foundations of the temple which were just being excavated, where a pool of water had gathered which either issued from springs somewhere in the foundations themselves or had fallen from the sky, he secreted there a goose-egg, previously blown, which contained a snake just born; and after burying it deep in the mud, he went back again. In the morning he ran out into the market-place naked, wearing a loin-cloth (this too was gilded),14 carrying his falchion, and tossing his unconfined mane like a devotee of the Great Mother in the frenzy. Addressing the people from a high altar upon which he had climbed, he congratulated the city because it was at once to receive the god in visible presence. The assembly—for almost the whole city, including women, old men, and boys, had come running— marvelled, prayed and made obeisance. Uttering, a few meaningless words like Hebrew or Phoenician, he dazed the creatures, who did not know what he was saying save only that he everywhere brought in Apollo and Asclepius. [14] Then he ran at full speed to the future temple, went to the excavation and the previously improvised fountain-head of the oracle, entered ‘the water, sang hymns in honour of Asclepius and Apollo at the top of his voice, and besought the god, under the blessing of Heaven, to come to the city. Then he asked for a libation-saucer, and when somebody handed him one, deftly slipped it underneath and brought up, along with water and mud, that egg in which he had immured the god; the joint about the plug had been closed with wax and white lead. Taking it in his hands, he asserted that at that moment he held Asclepius! They gazed unwaveringly to see what in the world was going to happen; indeed, they had already marvelled at the discovery of the egg in the water. But when he broke it and received the tiny snake into his hollowed hand, and the crowd saw it moving and twisting about his fingers, they at once raised a shout, welcomed the god, congratulated their city, and began each of them to sate him­self greedily with prayers, craving treasures, riches, health, and every other blessing from, him. But Alexander went home again at full speed, taking with him the new-born Asclepius, “born twice, when other men are born but once,”15 whose mother was not Coronis,16 by Zeus, nor yet a crow, but a goose! And the whole population followed, all full of religious fervour and crazed with expectations.

Alexander put a baby snake into a goose egg, sealed it up and then amazed the people of Pontus when the egg 'hatched'! Thus the new god Glycon was born. If Monty Python ever wanted to do a sequel to the "Life of Brian", the above is the perfect material.

The skeptics of the new god at that time were Epicureans (which was not unexpected), Christians and atheists. Alexander claimed them as enemies, especially the followers of Epicurus. (Interestingly, Alexander claimed as his friends the followers of Plato and Pythagoras). As Lucian writes:

• When at last many sensible men, recovering, as it were, from profound intoxication, combined against him, especially all the followers of Epicurus, and when in the cities they began gradually to detect all the trickery and buncombe of the show, he issued a promulgation designed to scare them, saying that Pontus was full of atheists and Christians who had the hardihood to utter the vilest abuse of him; these he bade them drive away with stones if they wanted to have the god gracious...
  
  In general, the war that he waged upon Epicurus was without truce or parley, naturally enough. Upon whom else would a quack who loved humbug and bitterly hated truth more fittingly make war than upon Epicurus, who discerned the nature of things and alone knew the truth in them? The followers of Plato and Chrysippus and Pythagoras were his friends, and there was profound peace with them; but “the impervious Epicurus” —for that is what he called him—was rightly his bitter enemy, since he considered all that sort of thing a laughing-matter and a joke...
  
  [Alexander] established a celebration of mysteries, with torch­light ceremonies and priestly offices, which was to be held annually, for three days in succession, in perpetuity. On the first day, as at Athens,32 there was a proclamation, worded as follows: “If any atheist or Christian or Epicurean has come to spy upon the rites, let him be off, and let those who believe in the god perform the mysteries, under the blessing of Heaven.” Then, at the very outset, there was an “expulsion,” in which he took the lead, saying: “Out with the Christians,” and the whole multitude chanted in response, “Out with the Epicureans!”

[MrMacSon]

Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been
attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist, and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction.
In particular, his story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods."
Michael Grant, "Jesus", 1997, pp. 199–200.

"Pure fiction" may be a bit of a strawman, or disingenuous.

What do you mean by that Mac? Please expand.

To me pure fiction is sitting down & writing a complete single-author-single-edition work of pure fiction. Everyone knows it is. eg. Harry Potter.

I'm not sure anyone has ever said any of the biblical books is a complete single-edition work of pure fiction.

They are likely to have been collated stories, re-worked over many decades/generations of a century or two. We know that from the various versions of various works. eg short v long Mark; recent discussions here about versions of Luke; the Synoptic Problem, etc.

People 2-3 generations beyond the cementing of the notion "Jesus was real" would not know any different.

That is around about what I would estimate. The chief authority cited by the bishops of the 4th and early 5th century are "The Three Hundred and Eighteen Nicaean Fathers". The chief authority amidst the 318 Nicaean fathers was the Emperor Constantine.

What I find disturbing is the material contained in Constantine's Oration at the Council of Antioch (prior to Nicaea).

Quite relevant to the OP is Constantine's warning that "Socrates critical questioning is a menace to the state".

I wonder which Socrates that Constantine was referring to.

Remember Constantine was in cahoots with Eusebius; who was a pupil of Pamphilus who, in turn, was a pupil of Origen's. I understand Origen's library ended up in Eusebius's possession.
.

[Leucius Charinus]

You're welcome! How they thought in those days is a very interesting topic to me. If I think of other texts that might be relevant, I'll add them.

Thanks man.

There is a big difference between being sceptical about one's familiar "gods" and being sceptical about a very "new and strange god".

Can you expand on that? What is the big difference, in your view?

The major difference IMO is familiarity. I do not feel any risk in repeating some quotes from Momigliano, because he has done some hard yards in the ancient history field, so here is one which seems very appropriate to my response ...

• We all know the story of the man who went into a London bookshop and asked for a New Testament in Greek. The assistant retired to a back room and after ten minutes came back with a grave look: ‘Strange, sir, but Greek seems to be the only language into which the New Testament has not yet been translated.’ The story may remind us of two facts. The first is that there was a time in which the New Testament was only available in Greek. The second and more important is that at that time it was as difficult as it is now to find a bookshop with a New, or for that matter an Old, Testament in Greek. About A.D. 180 a man like Galen could walk into a bookshop only to discover that they were selling an unauthorized edition of his own lectures. But though he was interested in the Christians, Galen would hardly have found a Bible.
  
  The Bible was no literature for the pagan. Its Greek was not elegant enough. Lactantius noted: ‘apud sapientes et doctos et principes huius saeculi scriptura sancta fide care(a)t (Inst.v.1.15). If we find a pagan who had a slight acquaintance with the Bible, such as the anonymous author of On the Sublime, we suspect direct Jewish influence: justifiedly so, because the author of the Sublime was a student of Caecilius of Calacte, who, to all appearances was a Jew (11). Normally the educated pagans of the Roman empire knew nothing about either Jewish or Christian history. If they wanted some information about the Jews, they picked up second-hand distortions such as we read in Tacitus.
  
  The consequence was that a direct acquaintance with Jewish or Christian history normally came together with conversion to Judaism or to Christianity. People learnt a new history because they acquired a new religion. Conversion meant literally the discovery of a new history from Adam and Eve to contemporary events (12).
  
  Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.
  http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... 20post.htm
  

The pagans were familiar with their own traditional gods. When Diocletian abdicated and went home to the farm to grow cabbages, he had already constructed his country "palace". Gibbon makes a long description of Diocletian's palace, and ends the description with the following short paragraph:

• The approach was terminated by a peristylium of granite columns, on one side of which we discover the square temple of Asclepius, on the other the octagon temple of Jupiter. The latter of those deities Diocletian revered as the patron of his fortunes, the former as the protector of his health.

The old gods had temples everywhere and had statues and works of art devoted to them.

We can therefore severely contrast the "new and strange" Christian state god, because he appears in an encrypted form "IS" inside a codex. This was indeed a strange god for the pagans to feel familiar about, although - thinking about it - they probably thought the gods talked about in Homer may have come from a codex as well, since the Old Greek stories were also read aloud at performances, etc. But the gods in Homer were also abundantly evident in the pagan world just before c.325 CE.

Even allowing a few Christian churches and a "Jesus Presence" in Alexandria c.325 CE the OP is seeking evidence of scepticism of the historicity of Jesus from educated pagan academics and theologians of the pagan cults. What was the response of the Platonists, because they were well represented in Alexandria in the all the centuries leading up to the epoch in question.

Constantine would have been very keen to convert the entire Sacred Assembly of the pagan Priesthood to the Christian religion immediately. He may have attempted this at Antioch and at Nicaea (see the Phillip of Side fragment). But as Momigliano comments, it was usually a conversion to the Christian religion which brought about a great and burning interest in the Bible Codex.

Even if I allow Marcion to be the editor-in-chief of the NT books the Catholic Church got its hands on in the 2nd century, the political conversion of the pagans to the Christian religion c.325 and onwards through to the fourth century seems to have been very coerced. The Jesus Story became a brand new tool of power to fuel the politics of the empire and all Christian empires to follow. I think it is childish to expect the pagans to have gone down under all the prohibitions enforced upon them by Constantine without some sort of literary backlash at the historicity of Jesus. Maybe they just wrote songs?

For skepticism on familiar and new gods, there is Lucian of Samosata.

Good old Lucian, not to be confused with "Pseudo-Lucian" LOL !!

My favourite is LIFE OF DEMONAX: http://sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl3/wl302.htm

• Another person, entrusted by the Emperor with the command of legions and the charge of a great province, asked him what was the way to govern well. 'Keep your temper, say little, and hear much.'
  
  Epictetus once urged him, with a touch of reproof, to take a wife and raise a family--for it beseemed a philosopher to leave some one to represent him after the flesh. But he received the home thrust: 'Very well, Epictetus; give me one of your daughters.'
  
  Party spirit was once running high at Athens; he came into the assembly, and his mere appearance was enough to still the storm. When he saw that they were ashamed, he departed again without having uttered a word.
  
  When Apollonius was appointed professor of philosophy in the Imperial household, Demonax witnessed his departure, attended by a great number of his pupils. 'Why, here is Apollonius with all his Argonauts,' he cried.
  
  Asked whether he held the soul to be immortal, 'Dear me, yes,' he said; 'everything is.'
  

[Leucius Charinus]

Subsequently, from the eighteenth century onwards, there have been
attempts to insist that Jesus did not even "seem" to exist, and that all tales of his appearance upon the earth were pure fiction.
In particular, his story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods."
Michael Grant, "Jesus", 1997, pp. 199–200.

"Pure fiction" may be a bit of a strawman, or disingenuous.

What do you mean by that Mac? Please expand.

To me pure fiction is sitting down & writing a complete single-author-single-edition work of pure fiction. Everyone knows it is. eg. Harry Potter.

Have you read Jesus Potter Harry Christ: The Fascinating Parallels Between Two of the World's Most Popular Literary Characters [Derek Murphy]

The classical historian Grant above is referring to the proponents of the Jesus Myth theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myt ... proponents

What I find disturbing is the material contained in Constantine's Oration at the Council of Antioch (prior to Nicaea).

Quite relevant to the OP is Constantine's warning that "Socrates critical questioning is a menace to the state".[/color]

I wonder which Socrates that Constantine was referring to.

The Greek one. Plato's buddy.

Better yet, have a look at what Fox says about "Constantine's Oration". This represents Constantine's .... First Public Announcement as Emperor"

Remember Constantine was in cahoots with Eusebius;

Remember Constantine was Boss. Eusebius was working in a well paid job for Constantine.

.... who was a pupil of Pamphilus who, in turn, was a pupil of Origen's.

And remember that there is in the 3rd century a Christian Origen and a Platonist Origen, and both had the same teacher called Ammonius.

I understand Origen's library ended up in Eusebius's possession.
.

YES. Along with Origen's Greek LXX translation which Eusebius used in his capacity of editor-in-chief for the first Constantine Bibles.

The question the OP asks is what was the academic pagan reaction to the appearance of these Bibles as "God's Holy Truth"?

[Leucius Charinus]

I have just noticed that the definition that WIKI now uses for the entry under Docetism .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism ... is as follows:

• In Christian terminology, docetism (from the Greek δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn (to seem) /dókēsis (apparition, phantom),[1][2] according to Norbert Brox, is defined narrowly as "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality." [3][4] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.

Footnote [3] refers to N. Brox while Footnote [4] links to https://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=d ... gws_rd=ssl

Here the author writes:

• N.Brox has expressed himself emphatically against a widespread use of the term, and has sought an exact definition which links up with the original usage (eg: Clement of Alexandria), This book then cites the passage WIKI uses in its definition of the doctrine of Docetism.

Am I missing something here, because this definition allows the docetae to have the doctrine that the historical existence of Jesus is without any true reality.

[Leucius Charinus]

A further small study on the Docetic heresy mentioned by Grant

• "In ancient times, this extreme view was named the heresy of docetism (seeming) because it maintained that Jesus never came into the world "in the flesh", but only seemed to; (I John 4:2) and it was given some encouragement by Paul's lack of interest in his fleshly existence." Michael Grant, "Jesus", 1997, pp. 199–200

I have now gathered and presented all the literary manuscript references in which "Docetism" has been identified. (See below)

According to the authors cited in the WIKI definition "DOCETISM" may include the doctrine of those who refused to confess that Jesus had appeared in history. In the canon the docetists have also been linked to the anti-Christian warnings in the letters of John about people "who refused to confess that Jesus had appeared in the flesh". Outside of the canon, people have reported the presence of Docetism in a range of literary material .... Texts believed to include Docetism. See ... Docetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Superficially it looks like some authors (obviously demented heretics) were writing that Jesus didn't die his own death.

Is there any literary evidence from antiquity to suggest that Julius Caesar (or any other historical identity in antiquity) did not die their own death?

How are historians to interpret this literary evidence? Any suggestions or comments"


On some occasions Jesus is presented to laugh at this non historical death. Jesus does not laugh in the NT. The canonical material is supposed to be very serious business. No laughter. Jesus only laughs in the Gnostic material. I wonder why? It seems quite "Monty Pythonish" to me.

I have collected most of the references. Please feel free to correct etc.
This is obviously incomplete but it a start to furnish the literary evidence for analysis and discussion.

Where it may lead is anyone's guess. What does all this mean? IDK.

• Gnostic Literature in which "Docetism" has been perceived
  
  (1) Acts of John:
  (2) Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter:
  (3) The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
  (4) Gospel of Barnabas:
  (5) The Interpretation of Knowledge
  (6) Gospel of Phillip
  (7) Gospel of Judas
  (8) Fundamental Epistle (Manichaean)
  (9) Gospel of Peter
  
  
  
  (1) Acts of John: (The Apostle John cannot find any of Jesus's footprints)
  
  ".... Sometimes when I meant to touch him [Jesus], I met with a material and solid body; but at other times when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, as if it did not exist at all ...
  And I often wished, as I walked with him, to see his footprint, whether it appeared on the ground (for I saw him as it were raised up from the earth), and I never saw it.
  
  (2) Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter: (Jesus laughs at his substitute's crucifixion)
  
  
  "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."
  
  
  (3) The Second Treatise of the Great Seth: (Jesus laughs AGAIN at his substitute's crucifixion)
  
  
  "For my death, which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death...It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I[t] was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns...And I was laughing at their ignorance." (Jesus as purported narrator).
  
  
  (4) Gospel of Barnabas: (Used by the Quranic compliers - "The wonderful God" swaps Judas with Jesus, and Judas is the one crucified)
  
  
  ‘And Judas the traitor entered before the rest into the place from which Jesus had just been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. And the wonderful God acted wonderfully, changing Judas into the same figure and speech with Jesus. We, believing that it was he, said to him, “Master, whom seekest thou?” And he said to them, smiling, “Ye have forgotten yourselves, since ye do not know Judas Iscariot.” At this time the soldiery entered; and seeing Judas so like in every respect to Jesus, laid hands upon him….’(Chapter 217)
  
  
  
  (5) The Interpretation of Knowledge: (Jesus did not die his own death)
  
  
  "And he was crucified and he died - not his own death, for he did not at all deserve to die because of the church of mortals. And he was nailed so that they might keep him in the Church."
  
  NOTE: This is not listed at WIKI but it seems similar to me atm so its here.
  
  
  
  (6) Gospel of Phillip - Jesus has various "forms"
  
  
  "Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not appear as he was, but in the manner in which they would be able to see him . . . He appeared to the angels as an angel, and to men as a man. Because of this his word hid itself from everyone . . . When he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount . . . he made the disciples great that they might be able to see him in his greatness."
  
  The English translation is by Wesley W. Isenberg, in James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, translated and introduced by members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont, California, third edition (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988), pp. 144-45.
  
  
  
  
  (7) Gospel of Judas
  
  Judas's opening comment is that Jesus would often appear to his disciples "as a child" [Ehrman].
  
  
  
  (8) Fundamental Epistle (Manichaean)
  
  In the Contra epistulam fundamenti (Against the Fundamental Epistle), Augustine of Hippo makes reference to the Manichaeans believing that Jesus was Docetic. Augustine was supposed to be an ex-Manichaean reader, and wrote about the "Fundamental Epistle". Augustine was also a heresiologist writing against the heretics. Studies have suggested that Augustine's manner of report could be described as 'pseudo-historical polemic'. Other studies have shown, by comparing other manuscript sources for a (canonical) list of the literature of Mani and the Manichaeans, this "Fundamental Epistel" is nowhere mentioned. What was AUgustine up to?
  
  (9) Gospel of Peter
  
  Jesus is lead from the tomb and his head is higher than the sky;
  The cross follows along behind Jesus at a walk.
  God and the cross communicate.
  The cross speaks its own talk.
  It says "YEAH!".
  
  
  Condemned as docetic by Serapion via Eusebius. The text ....
  "My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me"'. Immediately after, Peter states that
  "when he had said it he was taken up", suggesting that Jesus did not actually die.
  This, together with the claim that on the cross Jesus "remained silent, as though he felt no pain",
  has led many early Christians to accuse the text of docetism.
  
  
  
  
  ===========

AFAIK the authors N. Brox and co, who have formulated a definition for "Docetic" which includes denying the historical existence of Jesus, defer to the definition of "Docetism" in the works of Clement. I haven't read any of this stuff. So what does Clement think about the docetic heretics?


I'd like to end by repeating an important question asked above:

Is there any literary evidence from antiquity to suggest that Julius Caesar
(or any other historical identity in antiquity)
did not die their own death?

How are historians to interpret this literary evidence of someone not dying their own death?

Is it a recognised literary trope?

Any suggestions or comments"