Misplaced Pages

Docetism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:45, 24 April 2012 editBruceGrubb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,222 edits →Docetism and Christ myth theory← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:33, 22 November 2024 edit undoTgeorgescu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,762 editsm WP:BANREVERT 
(293 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|View that Jesus' body was illusory}}
In ], '''docetism''' (from the ] {{lang|grc|δοκέω}} ''dokeō'', "to seem") is the belief that ]' physical body was an illusion, as was his ]; that is, Jesus only ''seemed'' to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (''] 1:14'') as merely figurative.<ref>Smith, Sir William; William George Smith; Henry Wace (1877) ''A dictionary of Christian biography, literature, sects and doctrines'' pg 867-870</ref>
{{Distinguish|Donatism}}
{{Christology|expanded=Doctrines}}


In the ], '''docetism''' (from the {{langx|grc-x-koine|δοκεῖν/δόκησις}} ''dokeĩn'' "to seem", ''dókēsis'' "apparition, phantom"<ref>{{harvnb|González|2005|pp=46–47}}: "A term derived from the Greek ''dokein'', to seem, or to appear."</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Strecker|2000|p=438}}.</ref>) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of ], his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.<ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|p=306}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}.</ref> Broadly, it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.
Docetism is regarded as ] by the ], ], and many others.<ref></ref><ref>{{citation |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=qVqJetnPT4QC&pg=PA25 |page=25 |title=Everything you ever wanted to know about heaven – but never dreamed of asking |author= Peter Kreeft}}</ref>


The word {{lang|grc|Δοκηταί}} ''Dokētaí'' ("Illusionists") referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop ] (197–203),{{sfn|Breidenbaugh|2008|p=179–81}} who discovered the doctrine in the ], during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in ], and later condemned it as a forgery.{{sfn|Ehrman|2005|p=16}}<ref>{{harvnb|Foster|2009|p=79}}. Serapion first approved its use, and only reversed his opinion on returning to his bishopric in Antioch, after being informed of its contents. He wrote a "Concerning the So-Called Gospel of St&nbsp;Peter", which is alluded to in ]'s '']'' VI&nbsp;12.3–6.</ref> It appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning, figurative or literal, of a sentence from the ]: "the Word was made Flesh".<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|Wace|1877|pp=867–870}}.</ref>
==Christology and theological implications==
This belief is most commonly attributed to the ]s, many of whom believed that matter was evil, and as a result ] would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil, lesser god (the ]) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.


Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the ] in 325<ref name="Ridgeon 2001 xv">{{harvnb|Ridgeon|2001|p=xv}}.</ref> and is regarded as ] by the ], ], ], ], ],{{sfn|Arendzen|2012}} and many Protestant denominations that accept and hold to the statements of these early church councils, such as ], ], and all ].
Docetism can be further explained as the view that since the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus must have been an illusion and, likewise, his crucifixion. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in ] and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this ] view.


==Definitions==
Docetism was an aberrant form of early Christianity, developing around 50 AD, which was most prominently espoused by Gnostic sects.<ref name="Strong">Strong, A.H. ''Systematic Theology''. 1907</ref> Its origin within Christianity is obscure and it has been argued that its origins were in heterodox Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.<ref name="Gavrilyuk2004">{{cite book |author=Paul L. Gavrilyuk |title=The suffering of the impassible God: the dialectics of patristic thought |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=im6YCAlcmo0C&pg=PA80 |accessdate=31 July 2010 |date=20 May 2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780199269822 |pages=80–}}</ref> Some of the books of the ] condemn docetic teachings and the early creeds developed to counter docetic beliefs.<ref name="González2005">{{cite book |author=Justo L. González |title=Essential theological terms |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=DU6RNDrfd-0C&pg=PA46 |accessdate=31 July 2010 |date=15 April 2005 |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press |isbn= 9780664228101 |pages=46–}}</ref> 1st century Gnostic Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to pagan ways of thinking of divinity.<ref name="Gavrilyuk2004">{{cite book |author=Paul L. Gavrilyuk |title=The suffering of the impassible God: the dialectics of patristic thought |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=im6YCAlcmo0C&pg=PA81 |accessdate= 31 July 2010 |date=20 May 2004 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780199269822 |pages=81–}}</ref> Docetism largely died out during the first millennium AD.
Docetism is broadly defined as the teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gonzalez|first=Justo|title=Essential Theological Terms|year=2005|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|location=Louisville|isbn=0-664-22810-0|pages=46–47|quote=Docetism is the claim that Jesus did not have a physical human body, but only the appearance of such.}}</ref> The term 'docetic' is rather nebulous.<ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|pp=301–314}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}: "N Brox has expressed himself emphatically against a widespread nebulous use of the term, and has sought an exact definition which links up with the original usage (e.g. in Clement of Alexandria). Docetism is '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.'"</ref> Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in ], Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only ''appeared'' to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus' body in the form of a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross.<ref>{{harvnb|Ehrman|2005|p=16}}</ref>


==Christology and theological implications==
] wrote against docetism around 110 AD in his ]. In 7:1, he said, "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes". Since one of the main beliefs of docetism was that the body of Jesus was an illusion, docetists could not accept that the bread and wine used in the ] were (representationally or ontologically) the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Other detailed criticisms were given by ] and ].
Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. ] controversially defined the ] of the ] as "naïve docetism" in 1968.<ref>{{harvnb|Ehrman|1996|p=197}}.</ref> The ensuing debate reached an impasse as awareness grew that the very term "docetism", like "]", was difficult to define within the religio-historical framework of the debate.<ref>{{harvnb|Larsen|2008|p=347}}</ref> It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox ] or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.<ref>{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004|p=80}}.</ref> The alleged connection with ]ity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) ].<ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|p=314}}.</ref> Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, ] {{bibleverse-nb|1 John|4:2|31}} appearing explicitly to reject them.<ref name="González2005">{{harvnb|González|2005|pp=46–7}}</ref> Some 1st{{nbhyph}}century Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to non-Christian ways of thinking about divinity.<ref>{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004 |p=81}}.</ref>


In his critique of the theology of ], ] in his ] held that Clement's views reflected a quasi-docetic view of the nature of Christ, writing that " hallucinates that the Word was not incarnate but ''only seems to be''." (ὀνειροπολεῖ καὶ μὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ ''δόξαι''.) In Clement's time, some disputes contended over whether Christ assumed the "psychic" flesh of mankind as heirs to ], or the "spiritual" flesh of the resurrection.<ref>{{harvnb|Ashwin-Siejkowski|2010|p=95, n.2}} citing {{harvnb|Edwards|2002|p=23}}.</ref> Docetism largely died out during the first millennium AD.
==Docetism and Christ myth theory==


The opponents against whom ] inveighs against are often taken to be ] docetists.<ref>{{harvnb|Streett|2011|p=40}}.</ref> In his ], written around 110{{nbsp}}AD, he writes:
The relationship between Docetism and the ] has been debated ever since Drews' particular version was published in 1909. Some hold that the Christ myth theory is a variant of docetism<ref>Mathews, Shailer (1917) ''The spiritual interpretation of history'' Page 37.</ref><ref>Foreman, Dale (1990) ''Crucify Him: A Lawyer Looks at the Trial of Jesus'' pg 46</ref> while others have argued that this connection is a misunderstanding of docetism.<ref>Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis (1914) ''The historical Christ'' pg 104</ref><ref>(1934)''The Congregational quarterly'' Congregational Union of England and Wales</ref>
{{blockquote|They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.}}
While these characteristics fit a Monophysite framework, a slight majority of scholars consider that Ignatius was waging a polemic on two distinct fronts, one Jewish, the other docetic; a minority holds that he was concerned with a group that commingled Judaism and docetism. Others, however, doubt that there was actual docetism threatening the churches, arguing that he was merely criticizing Christians who lived Jewishly or that his critical remarks were directed at an ] or ] possessionist Christology, according to which Christ was a heavenly spirit that temporarily possessed Jesus.<ref>{{harvnb|Streett|2011|pp=42–44}}.</ref>


==Islam and docetism==
In 1977, ] ] seemed to reinforce the idea that there was a connection between the various versions of the ] and docetism:
{{main|Islamic views on Jesus' death}}


Some commentators have attempted to make a connection between Islam and docetism using the following Quranic verse:<ref name=parrinder>{{cite book|title=Jesus in the Qur'an|author=Geoffrey Parrinder|publisher=Oneworld Publications|year=2013|pages=112, 118–119}}</ref>
<blockquote>
"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. 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.<ref name="Grant 1977 199–200">{{citation | first = Michael | last = Grant | title = Jesus: An Historian’s Review | pages = 199–200 | year = 1977}}</ref>
</blockquote>


{{blockquote|And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. {{Cite Quran Ayah|4|157-158|s=y|b=yl|t=p}} }}
] and ] also support the idea that docetism and the ] are related.


Some scholars theorise that Islam was influenced by ] (Docetism) in this view. However, the general consensus is that ] was not prevalent in ] in the 6th and 7th centuries, when Islam developed, and the influence can therefore not be proven.<ref>{{harvnb|Gil|1992|p=41}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/manicheism-iv-missionary-activity-and-technique-|title=MANICHEISM v. MISSIONARY ACTIVITY AND TECHNIQUE|quote=That Manicheism went further on to the Arabian peninsula, up to the Hejaz and Mecca, where it could have possibly contributed to the formation of the doctrine of Islam, cannot be proven. A detailed description of Manichean traces in the Arabian-speaking regions is given by Tardieu (1994).}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=M. Tardieu, "Les manichéens en Egypte,"&nbsp;Bulletin de la Société Française d'Egyptologie&nbsp;94, 1982}}</ref>
However in his review of ''Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teaching of the Original Christians'' Robert Price notes that "docetism" along with terms like "encratism", "Gnosticism", and "adoptionism" has suffered a fate similar to modern terms like Xerox, Jello, and Kleenex and has been "far beyond what historically descriptive usage would allow"<ref>Price, Robert (2009)</ref>


==Islam and docetism== ==Docetism and Christ myth theory==
{{See also|Christ myth theory}}
The ] ] ]:157&ndash;158 reads:
Since ] published his '']'' (''Die Christusmythe'') in 1909, occasional connections have been drawn between docetist theories and the modern idea that Christ was a myth. ] called Drews' theory a "modern docetism".{{Sfn |Mathews|2006 |p= 37}} ] thought any connection to be based on a misunderstanding of docetism.{{Sfn |Conybeare|1914|p= 104}} The idea recurred in ] ]'s 1977 review of the evidence for Jesus, who compared modern scepticism about a historical Jesus to the ancient docetic idea that Jesus only ''seemed'' to come into the world "in the flesh". Modern supporters of the theory did away with "seeming".{{Sfn |Grant |2004 |pp= 199–200 | ps =: "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. 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."}}
<blockquote>{{cite quran|4|157|e=158|tn=p|q=And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger &mdash; they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.}}</blockquote>
The Qur'an was compiled in the mid-seventh century AD (around 650 CE), corresponding to the period when docetism was still commonly accepted and taught among some Christian sects.


==Texts believed to include docetism==
While in this sense ] is undeniably docetic, ] reject the divinity of Jesus; thus, many of the theological objections to the idea are irrelevant for Islam.


==Texts including docetism==
===Non-canonical Christian texts=== ===Non-canonical Christian texts===
* ] * ]
* ]: In ''Against the Fundamental Epistle'', ] makes reference to ] believing that Jesus was docetic.
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* In the ''Contra epistulam fundamenti'', ] makes reference to the ] believing that ] was Docetic.
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]


==See also== ==See also==
{{columns-list|
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
}}
* ]
{{clear}} <!-- Please leave the "clear" tag at the end of this section -->
* ]


==References== ==Footnotes==
{{Reflist}} {{Reflist}}

==References==
{{refbegin|30em}}
*{{Cite book
|chapter = Docetae
|title = The Catholic Encyclopedia
|last = Arendzen
|first = J.
|author-link = John Arendzen
|publisher = Robert Appleton Company
|year = 2012
|orig-year = 1909
|volume = 5
|url = http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|chapter = The Docetic View of Christ
|title = Clement of Alexandria on Trial: The Evidence of "Heresy" from Photius' Bibliotheca
|series = Vigiliae Christianae
|last = Ashwin-Siejkowski
|first = Piotr
|publisher = Brill
|year = 2010
|volume = 101
|pages = 95–113
|isbn = 978-0-19-518249-1
|chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=45pfB4VaoAIC&pg=PA95
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|chapter = Docetism
|title = The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity
|last = Breidenbaugh
|first = Joel R.
|editor1-last = Hindson
|editor1-first = Ed
|editor1-link = Ed Hindson
|editor2-last = Caner
|editor2-first = Ergun
|editor2-link = Ergun Caner
|editor3-last = Verstraete
|editor3-first = Edward J.
|publisher = Harvest House Publishers
|year = 2008
|pages = 186–193
|isbn = 978-0-7369-2084-1
|chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=yipXIHcteRsC&pg=PA179
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite journal| title = 'Doketismus' – eine Problemanzeige
|periodical = Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte
|last = Brox
|first = Norbert
|publisher = ]
|year = 1984
|volume = 95
|pages = 301–314
|issn = 0044-2925
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = The Historical Christ: Or, An Investigation of the Views of Mr. J. M. Robertson, Dr. A. Drews, and Prof. W. B.
|last = Conybeare
|first = Frederick Cornwallis
|author-link = Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare
|publisher = Open court Publishing Company
|year = 1914
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=8lQwAQAAMAAJ
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = Origen against Plato
|series = Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity
|last = Edwards
|first = Mark J.
|publisher = Ashgate
|year = 2002
|isbn = 978-0-7546-0828-8
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=FUgKAQAAMAAJ
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament
|last = Ehrman
|first = Bart D.
|author-link = Bart Ehrman
|publisher = Oxford University Press
|year = 1996
|isbn = 978-0-19-974628-6
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=HGpL9x19GaEC&pg=PT197
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and The Faiths We Never Knew
|last = Ehrman
|first = Bart D.
|author-link = Bart Ehrman
|publisher = Oxford University Press
|year = 2005
|edition = 2
|isbn = 978-0-19-518249-1
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=URdACxKubDIC&pg=PA16
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = The Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction
|series = Very Short Introductions
|last = Foster
|first = Paul
|publisher = Oxford University Press
|year = 2009
|volume = 201
|isbn = 978-0-19-923694-7
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=wt8J6wwQX9cC&pg=PT79
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought
|series = Oxford Early Christian Studies
|last = Gavrilyuk
|first = Paul L.
|publisher = Oxford University Press
|year = 2004
|isbn = 978-0-19-926982-2
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=im6YCAlcmo0C&pg=PA80
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book| chapter = The Creed of Abū ‘Āmir
| volume = 12
| pages = 9–58
| editor= Joel L. Kraemer
| last = Gil
| first = Moshe
| title = Israel Oriental Studies
| date = 1992}}
*{{Cite book
|title = Essential Theological Terms
|last = González
|first = Justo L.
|publisher = Westminster John Knox Press
|year = 2005
|isbn = 978-0-664-22810-1
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=DU6RNDrfd-0C&pg=PA46
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = Jesus
|last = Grant
|first = Michael
|author-link = Michael Grant (author)
|publisher = Rigel
|year = 2004
|orig-year = 1977
|isbn = 978-1-898799-88-7
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=zVUxICZlgYIC
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|chapter = Narrative Docetism: Christology and Storytelling in the Gospel of John
|title = The Gospel of John and Christian Theology
|last = Larsen
|first = Kasper Bro
|editor1-last = Bauckham
|editor1-first = Richard
|editor1-link = Richard Bauckham
|editor2-last = Mosser
|editor2-first = Carl
|publisher = Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
|year = 2008
|pages = 346–355
|isbn = 978-0-8028-2717-3
|chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=3b2I8v2Gh8oC&pg=PA346
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = The Spiritual Interpretation of History
|last = Mathews
|first = Shailer
|author-link = Shailer Mathews
|publisher = Cosimo, Inc.
|year = 2006
|orig-year = 1917
|isbn = 978-1-59605-138-6
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=QCnZXJ50JVkC&pg=PA37
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = The Glorious Qur'an: The Arabic Text with a Translation in English
|last = Pickthall
|first = Muhammad M.
|author-link = Marmaduke Pickthall
|publisher = TTQ, INC.
|year = 2001
|orig-year = 1930
|isbn = 978-1-879402-51-5
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=TPRHUs_k5t8C&pg=PA86
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}{{Dead link|date=February 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*{{Cite book
|title = Islamic Interpretations of Christianity
|last = Ridgeon
|first = Lloyd V. J.
|editor-last = Ridgeon
|editor-first = Lloyd V. J.
|publisher = Palgrave Macmillan
|year = 2001
|isbn = 978-0-312-23854-4
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=neHX-lp_yegC&pg=PR15
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|chapter = The Gospel of Peter
|title = New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings
|last1 = Schneemelcher
|first1 = Wilhelm
|author-link = Wilhelm Schneemelcher
|last2 = Maurer
|first2 = Christian
|editor1-last = Schneemelcher
|editor1-first = Wilhelm
|editor1-link = Wilhelm Schneemelcher
|editor2-last = Wilson
|editor2-first = McLachlan
|publisher = Westminster John Knox Press
|year = 1994
|orig-year = 1991
|volume = 1
|pages = 216–227
|isbn = 978-0-664-22721-0
|chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=TDW0PeFSvGEC&pg=PA220
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book
|title = A dictionary of Christian biography, literature, sects and doctrines
|editor1-last = Smith
|editor1-first = William George
|editor1-link = William Smith (lexicographer)
|editor2-last = Wace
|editor2-first = Henry
|editor2-link = Henry Wace (priest)
|publisher = John Murray
|year = 1877
|pages = 867–870
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=xLxk5AAACAAJ
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}{{Dead link|date=February 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*{{Cite book
|title = Theology of the New Testament
|last = Strecker
|first = Georg
|editor-last = Horn
|editor-first = Friedrich Wilhelm
|publisher = Walter de Gruyter
|year = 2000
|isbn = 978-3-11-015652-2
|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_fFzDSzktBwC&pg=PA438
|access-date = 25 April 2012
}}
*{{Cite book|title = They Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John
|series = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche
|last = Streett
|first = Daniel R.
|publisher = Walter de Gruyter
|year = 2011
|volume = 177
|isbn = 978-3-11-024770-1
}}
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
*{{Cite book |title = Docetism (Buddhist). In: Hastings, James; Encyclopaedia of religion and ethics, vol. 4
|last = Anesaki
|first = Masaharu
|publisher = Edinburgh: Clark
|year = 1911
|pages = 835–840
|url = https://archive.org/details/EncyclopaediaReligionsEthics.hastings.13vols.1908-1914.1926
}}
*{{Cite book |title = Phantom Jesus - Intro to Docetism
|last = Blakemore
|first = Joseph
|year = 2020
|pages = 10
|url = https://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Jesus-Docetism-Joseph-Blakemore-ebook/dp/B08FDZ6DG1/ref=sr_1_2?crid=18HM5PR62LPRH&keywords=Phantom+Jesus&qid=1655938713&sprefix=phantom+jesus%2Caps%2C165&sr=8-2
}}


==External links== ==External links==
* in the Catholic Encyclopedia * in the Catholic Encyclopedia


] {{History of Christianity|state=expanded}}
{{Heresies condemned by the Catholic Church}}
]
]
]


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 04:33, 22 November 2024

View that Jesus' body was illusory Not to be confused with Donatism.
Part of a series on
Christology
Christ Pantocrator
Concepts
Doctrines
Christological doctrines
By denomination

In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom") was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Broadly, it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.

The word Δοκηταί Dokētaí ("Illusionists") referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197–203), who discovered the doctrine in the Gospel of Peter, during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in Rhosus, and later condemned it as a forgery. It appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning, figurative or literal, of a sentence from the Gospel of John: "the Word was made Flesh".

Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Armenian Apostolic Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and many Protestant denominations that accept and hold to the statements of these early church councils, such as Reformed Baptists, Reformed Christians, and all Trinitarian Christians.

Definitions

Docetism is broadly defined as the teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory. The term 'docetic' is rather nebulous. Two varieties were widely known. In one version, as in Marcionism, Christ was so divine that he could not have been human, since God lacked a material body, which therefore could not physically suffer. Jesus only appeared to be a flesh-and-blood man; his body was a phantasm. Other groups who were accused of docetism held that Jesus was a man in the flesh, but Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus' body in the form of a dove at his baptism, empowered him to perform miracles, and abandoned him upon his death on the cross.

Christology and theological implications

Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. Ernst Käsemann controversially defined the Christology of the Gospel of John as "naïve docetism" in 1968. The ensuing debate reached an impasse as awareness grew that the very term "docetism", like "gnosticism", was difficult to define within the religio-historical framework of the debate. It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies. The alleged connection with Jewish Christianity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) monotheism. Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, 1 John 4:2 appearing explicitly to reject them. Some 1st‑century Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to non-Christian ways of thinking about divinity.

In his critique of the theology of Clement of Alexandria, Photius in his Myriobiblon held that Clement's views reflected a quasi-docetic view of the nature of Christ, writing that " hallucinates that the Word was not incarnate but only seems to be." (ὀνειροπολεῖ καὶ μὴ σαρκωθῆναι τὸν λόγον ἀλλὰ δόξαι.) In Clement's time, some disputes contended over whether Christ assumed the "psychic" flesh of mankind as heirs to Adam, or the "spiritual" flesh of the resurrection. Docetism largely died out during the first millennium AD.

The opponents against whom Ignatius of Antioch inveighs against are often taken to be Monophysite docetists. In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, written around 110 AD, he writes:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

While these characteristics fit a Monophysite framework, a slight majority of scholars consider that Ignatius was waging a polemic on two distinct fronts, one Jewish, the other docetic; a minority holds that he was concerned with a group that commingled Judaism and docetism. Others, however, doubt that there was actual docetism threatening the churches, arguing that he was merely criticizing Christians who lived Jewishly or that his critical remarks were directed at an Ebionite or Cerinthian possessionist Christology, according to which Christ was a heavenly spirit that temporarily possessed Jesus.

Islam and docetism

Main article: Islamic views on Jesus' death

Some commentators have attempted to make a connection between Islam and docetism using the following Quranic verse:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

Some scholars theorise that Islam was influenced by Manichaeism (Docetism) in this view. However, the general consensus is that Manichaeism was not prevalent in Mecca in the 6th and 7th centuries, when Islam developed, and the influence can therefore not be proven.

Docetism and Christ myth theory

See also: Christ myth theory

Since Arthur Drews published his The Christ Myth (Die Christusmythe) in 1909, occasional connections have been drawn between docetist theories and the modern idea that Christ was a myth. Shailer Mathews called Drews' theory a "modern docetism". Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare thought any connection to be based on a misunderstanding of docetism. The idea recurred in classicist Michael Grant's 1977 review of the evidence for Jesus, who compared modern scepticism about a historical Jesus to the ancient docetic idea that Jesus only seemed to come into the world "in the flesh". Modern supporters of the theory did away with "seeming".

Texts believed to include docetism

Non-canonical Christian texts

See also

Footnotes

  1. González 2005, pp. 46–47: "A term derived from the Greek dokein, to seem, or to appear."
  2. Strecker 2000, p. 438.
  3. Brox 1984, p. 306.
  4. Schneemelcher & Maurer 1994, p. 220.
  5. Breidenbaugh 2008, p. 179–81.
  6. Ehrman 2005, p. 16.
  7. Foster 2009, p. 79. Serapion first approved its use, and only reversed his opinion on returning to his bishopric in Antioch, after being informed of its contents. He wrote a "Concerning the So-Called Gospel of St Peter", which is alluded to in Eusebius's Church History VI 12.3–6.
  8. Smith & Wace 1877, pp. 867–870.
  9. Ridgeon 2001, p. xv.
  10. Arendzen 2012.
  11. Gonzalez, Justo (2005). Essential Theological Terms. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 46–47. ISBN 0-664-22810-0. Docetism is the claim that Jesus did not have a physical human body, but only the appearance of such.
  12. Brox 1984, pp. 301–314.
  13. Schneemelcher & Maurer 1994, p. 220: "N Brox has expressed himself emphatically against a widespread nebulous use of the term, and has sought an exact definition which links up with the original usage (e.g. in Clement of Alexandria). Docetism is '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.'"
  14. Ehrman 2005, p. 16
  15. Ehrman 1996, p. 197.
  16. Larsen 2008, p. 347
  17. Gavrilyuk 2004, p. 80.
  18. Schneemelcher & Maurer 1994, p. 220
  19. Brox 1984, p. 314.
  20. González 2005, pp. 46–7
  21. Gavrilyuk 2004, p. 81.
  22. Ashwin-Siejkowski 2010, p. 95, n.2 citing Edwards 2002, p. 23.
  23. Streett 2011, p. 40.
  24. Streett 2011, pp. 42–44.
  25. Geoffrey Parrinder (2013). Jesus in the Qur'an. Oneworld Publications. pp. 112, 118–119.
  26. Gil 1992, p. 41.
  27. "MANICHEISM v. MISSIONARY ACTIVITY AND TECHNIQUE". That Manicheism went further on to the Arabian peninsula, up to the Hejaz and Mecca, where it could have possibly contributed to the formation of the doctrine of Islam, cannot be proven. A detailed description of Manichean traces in the Arabian-speaking regions is given by Tardieu (1994).
  28. M. Tardieu, "Les manichéens en Egypte," Bulletin de la Société Française d'Egyptologie 94, 1982.
  29. Mathews 2006, p. 37.
  30. Conybeare 1914, p. 104.
  31. Grant 2004, pp. 199–200: "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. 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."

References

Further reading

External links

  • Docetae in the Catholic Encyclopedia
History of Christianity
Centuries
Origins and
Apostolic Age
Ante-Nicene
period
Late antiquity
(Great Church)
Catholicism
Eastern
Christianity
Middle Ages
Reformation
and
Protestantism
Lutheranism
Calvinism
Anglicanism
Anabaptism
1640–1789
1789–present
Beliefs condemned as heretical by the Catholic Church (list)
Antiquity This 1711 illustration for the Index Librorum Prohibitorum depicts the Holy Ghost supplying the book burning fire.
Middle Ages
Early modernity
Modernity
Categories: