Dubourg's intuition: the early Christians claimed that the Messiah was Jesus, and NOT that the Jesus was the Messiah

[Giuseppe]

A great obstacle, probably the only one, against the 'midrashical hypothesis' (=Dubourg et alia) and supporting Doudna's view, is the Book of Revelation.

• Whereas Doudna appears to have fixed very well the Book of Revelation, by seeing it (or at least his older nucleus) as a set of prophecies made by the priests of John of Gischala, obviously prophecies against Rome and against Paul and against Josephus,
  
  — something that is very easy to assume, indeed! —

• ...the midrashical hypothesis appears to be obliged to see the Book of Revelation as against the Pharisees (Babylon being the earthly Jerusalem and not Rome). For example, this follower of Dubourg, Olivier-Pierre Thébault, thinks that the Nicolaites (meaning 'sons of Balaam') are allegory of the Pharisees, of which the guilt is to reject the Christian messianism and to despise Jesus as 'Balaam'.
  
  
  Interesting when he writes:
  
  This is how all confusion is dispersed as to these Nicolaites, which was peddled from the first heresiologists of the Christian West and which aimed, for example, to introduce a major dissonance between Paul and the Apocalypse or between the Gnostics and the authors of it. Well no ! The sons of Balaam are to be found on the side of the rabbis opposed to the advent of the apocalyptic Rabbi, this principle of divine recreation, for example in a certain Rabbi Tarphon of sad memory since it is in his mouth that, according to certain sections of the Talmud, was put the harshest word against the evangelical midrashim enjoining to let them burn in case of fire etc.
  
  (my bold)
  
  Indeed, it is very difficult to see Revelation as a midrash, since some passages of it appear to be too much naive as to pure hatred against his enemies.

[Aleph One]

Odes of Solomon, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas (where the Jesus mentioned is Joshua).

In addition, the strange silence about Jesus's life in Paul.

About the latter point, Dubourg has a midrashical solution, too. I have to read still his commentary on Paul (i.e. the second part of his book).

I assume this post (and neil's) were a response to my question about early monuments without the name Jesus. I'm aware of this stuff (they are good examples) but I assumed Dubourg was referring to physical stoneworks or other artifacts. Was i just confused by the choice of words then?

[Giuseppe]

physical stoneworks or other artifacts.

stoneworks? In early Christianity? Obviously not.