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 editNext edit →Content 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 Revision as of 16:59, 25 April 2012 edit undoNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,509 edits A few fixes, removing WP:OR and WP:Undue, and adopting a single bibliographical template.etc.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
In ], '''docetism''' (from the ] {{lang|grc|δοκεἲν/δόκησις}} ''dokein''(to seem)/''dókēsis'' (apparition, phantom)<ref>{{harvnb|González|2005|p=46}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Strecker|2000|p=438}}.</ref> According to Norbert Brox, it 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." <ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|p=220}}.</ref> Broadly it is taken as the belief that ] only seemed to be human, and that his physical body was a phantasm. The word ''docetai'' (illusionists) referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Serapion, the Bishop of Antioch (197-203).<ref>{{harvnb|Breidenbaugh|2008|pp=179-181}}</ref> It appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning, figurative or literal, of the ] sentence "the Word was made Flesh".<ref>{{harvnb|Smith|Wace|1877|pp=867-870}}.</ref>
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>


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> Docetism was unequivocably rejected at the ] in 325<ref>{{harvnb|Ridgeon|2001|p=xv}}.</ref> is regarded as ] by the ], ], and many others.<ref>{{harvnb|Arendzen|2012}}.</ref>

==Definitions==
The term ‘docetic’ should be used with caution, since its use is rather nebulous.<ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|pp301-314}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Scheemelcher|Maurer|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> For ] "docetism", together "]", "]", and "]" has suffered a fate similar to modern terms like ], ], and ], being employed "far beyond what historically descriptive usage would allow".<ref>{{harvnb|Price|2009}}.</ref>


==Christology and theological implications== ==Christology and theological implications==
Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. ] controversially defined the Christology of St John’s Gospel 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 ‘gnosticism’ 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 Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.<ref name="Gavrilyuk2004">{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004|p=80}}.</ref> The alleged connection with ] would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) ].<ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer||p=220}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|p=314}}.</ref> Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, ] appearing explicitly to reject them.<ref name="González2005">{{harvnb|González|2005|pp=46-7}}</ref> Some 1st century 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">{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004 |p=81}}.</ref>
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.


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 Clement "He 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 mankind has as heirs to Adams, or the ‘spiritual’ flesh of the resurrection.<ref>{{harvnb|Ashwin-Siejkowski|2010|p=95, n.2}} citing {{harvnb|Edwards|2002|p=25}}.</ref>
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.
Docetism largely died out during the first millennium AD.


The opponents against whom ] inveighs are often taken to be ] docetists.<ref>{{harvnb|Street|2011|p=40}}.</ref> In his ], written around 110 C.E., he writes:
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.
<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".</blockquote>

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, while a distinct minority holds that he is concerned with a group that commingled Judaism and docetism. Other possibilities are that he was merely opposed to Christians who lived Jewishly, or deny that docetism threatened the church, or that his critical remarks were directed at an ] or ] possessionist Christology, where God descended and took possession of Jesus's body.
] 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 ].
<ref>{{harvnb|Streett|2011|pp=42-43}}.</ref>


==Docetism and Christ myth theory== ==Docetism and Christ myth theory==


Since ] published his ''The Christ Myth'' (Die Christusmythe) in 1909, occasional connections have been drawn between the modern idea that Christ was a myth and docetist theories. ] called his theory a "modern docetism".<ref>{{harvnb|Shailer|1917|p=37}}.</ref> ] thought any connection to be based on a misunderstanding of docetism.<ref>{{harvnb|Conybeare|1914|p=104}}.</ref> The idea recurred in ] ] 1977 review of the evidence for Jesus, who compared modern scepticism about an historical Jesus to the ancient docetic idea that Jesus only ''seemed'' to come into the world "in the flesh". Modern theories did away with "seeming".<ref name="Grant 1977 199–200">{{harvnb|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."</ref>
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>


==Islam and docetism==
In 1977, ] ] seemed to reinforce the idea that there was a connection between the various versions of the ] and docetism:


The ] has a docetic or gnostic Christology, viewing Jesus as a divinbe illuminator rather than the redeemer of Pauline Christianity.<ref>{{harvnb|Ridgeon|2001|p=xv}}.</ref>
<blockquote>
In ] ]:157&ndash;158 we read:
"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>

] and ] also support the idea that docetism and the ] are related.

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==
The ] ] ]:157&ndash;158 reads:
<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> <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. 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.
Line 33: Line 30:
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. 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== ==Texts believed to included docetism==
===Non-canonical Christian texts=== ===Non-canonical Christian texts===
* ] * ]
Line 56: Line 53:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
{{clear}} <!-- Please leave the "clear" tag at the end of this section -->


==Footnotes==
<references/>
==References== ==References==
{{Reflist}} {{refbegin|30em}}
*{{Cite book|chapter = Docetae
|title = The Catholic Encyclopedia
|last = Arendzen
|first = J.
|publisher = Robert Appleton Company
|year = 2012
|origyear = 1909
|volume = 5
|url = http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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 = 978-0-195-18249-1
|url = http://books.google.com.au/books?id=45pfB4VaoAIC&pg=PA95
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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
|editor2-last = Caner
|editor2-first = Ergun
|editor3-last = Verstraete
|editor3-first = Edward J.
|publisher = Harvest House Publishers
|year = 2008
|pages = 186–193
|isbn = 978-0-736-92084-1
|url = http://books.google.com.au/books?id=yipXIHcteRsC&pg=PA179
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{Cite journal| chapter = 'Doketismus'-eine Problemanzeige
|title = Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte
|last = Brox
|first = Norbert
|publisher = Kohlhammer Verlag
|year = 1984
|volume = 95
|pages =301-314
|issn = 0044-2925
|url = http://books.google.com.au/books?id=URdACxKubDIC&pg=PA16
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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
|authorlink =Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare
|publisher = Open court Publishing Company
|year = 1914
|url = http://books.google.it/books?id=8lQwAQAAMAAJ
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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 = 978-0-754-60828-8
|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=FUgKAQAAMAAJ
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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.
|authorlink = Bart Ehrman
|publisher = Oxford University Press
|year = 1996
|isbn = 978-0-199-74628-6
|url = http://books.google.it/books?id=HGpL9x19GaEC&pg=PT197
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{Cite book |title = Lost Christianities: The Battles For Scripture And The Faiths We Never Knew
|last = Ehrman
|first = Bart D.
|authorlink = Bart Ehrman
|publisher = Oxford University Press
|year = 2005
|edition = 2
|isbn = 978-0-195-18249-1
|url = http://books.google.com.au/books?id=URdACxKubDIC&pg=PA16
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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 = 978-0-199-23694-7
|url = http://books.google.com.au/books?id=wt8J6wwQX9cC&pg=PT79&lpg=PT79
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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 =978-0-199-26982-2
|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=im6YCAlcmo0C&pg=PA80
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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 = http://books.google.it/books?id=DU6RNDrfd-0C&pg=PA46
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{Cite book |title = Jesus
|last =Grant
|first = Michael
|authorlink = Michael Grant
|publisher = Rigel
|year = 2004
|origyear = 1977
|isbn = 978-1-898-79988-7
|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=zVUxICZlgYIC
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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
|editor2-last = Mosser
|editor2-first = Carl
|publisher = Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
|year =2008
|pages = 346-355
|isbn = 978-0-802-82717-3
|url =http://books.google.it/books?id=3b2I8v2Gh8oC&pg=PA346
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{Cite book |title = Review:Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teaching of the Original Christians
|last =Price
|first = Robert
|authorlink = Robert M. Price
|year = 2009
|url = http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/freke_gandy_lostgoddess.htm
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{Cite book |Introduction
|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 = http://books.google.com.au/books?id=neHX-lp_yegC&pg=PR15
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{Cite book |title = The Spiritual Interpretation of History
|last =Mathews
|first = Shailer
|authorlink = Shailer Mathews
|publisher = Cosimo, Inc.
|year = 2006
|origyear = 1917
|isbn = 978-1-596-05138-6
|url = http://books.google.it/books?id=QCnZXJ50JVkC&pg=PA37
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{Cite book|chapter = The Gospel of Peter
|title = New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings
|series = New Testament Apocrypha
|last1 = Schneemelcher
|first1 = Wilhelm
|last2 = Maurer
|first2 = Christian
|editor1-last = Schneemelcher
|editor1-first = Wilhelm
|editor2-last = Wilson
|editor2-first = McLachlan
|publisher = Westminster John Knox Press
|year = 1994
|origyear =1991
|volume = 1
|pages = 216-227
|isbn = 978-0-664-22721-0
|url = http://books.google.com.au/books?id=TDW0PeFSvGEC&pg=PA220
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{Cite book|title = A dictionary of Christian biography, literature, sects and doctrines
|editor1-last = Smith
|editor1-first = William George
|editor2-last = Wace
|editor2-first = Henry
|publisher = John Murray
|year = 1877
|pages = 867-870
|url = http://books.google.it/books?id=xLxk5AAACAAJ
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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 = 978-3-110-15652-2
|url = http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_fFzDSzktBwC&pg=PA438
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}
*{{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 = 978-3-110-24770-1
|url = http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_fFzDSzktBwC&pg=PA438
|accessdate = 25 April 2012
|ref = harv
}}

{{refend}}


==External links== ==External links==

Revision as of 16:59, 25 April 2012

In Christianity, docetism (from the Greek δοκεἲν/δόκησις dokein(to seem)/dókēsis (apparition, phantom) According to Norbert Brox, it 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." Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his physical body was a phantasm. The word docetai (illusionists) referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Serapion, the Bishop of Antioch (197-203). It appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning, figurative or literal, of the Johannine sentence "the Word was made Flesh".

Docetism was unequivocably rejected at the Council of Nicea in 325 is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and many others.

Definitions

The term ‘docetic’ should be used with caution, since its use is rather nebulous. For Robert Price "docetism", together "encratism", "Gnosticism", and "adoptionism" has suffered a fate similar to modern terms like Xerox, Jello, and Kleenex, being employed "far beyond what historically descriptive usage would allow".

Christology and theological implications

Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. Ernst Käsemann controversially defined the Christology of St John’s Gospel 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, 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 pagan ways of thinking of 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 Clement "He 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 mankind has as heirs to Adams, or the ‘spiritual’ flesh of the resurrection. Docetism largely died out during the first millennium AD.

The opponents against whom Ignatius of Antioch inveighs are often taken to be Monophysite docetists. In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, written around 110 C.E., 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, while a distinct minority holds that he is concerned with a group that commingled Judaism and docetism. Other possibilities are that he was merely opposed to Christians who lived Jewishly, or deny that docetism threatened the church, or that his critical remarks were directed at an Ebionite or Cerinthian possessionist Christology, where God descended and took possession of Jesus's body.

Docetism and Christ myth theory

Since Arthur Drews published his The Christ Myth (Die Christusmythe) in 1909, occasional connections have been drawn between the modern idea that Christ was a myth and docetist theories. Shailer Mathews called his 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 1977 review of the evidence for Jesus, who compared modern scepticism about an historical Jesus to the ancient docetic idea that Jesus only seemed to come into the world "in the flesh". Modern theories did away with "seeming".

Islam and docetism

The Qur'an has a docetic or gnostic Christology, viewing Jesus as a divinbe illuminator rather than the redeemer of Pauline Christianity. In Sura 4:157–158 we read:

"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."

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.

While in this sense Islam is undeniably docetic, Muslims reject the divinity of Jesus; thus, many of the theological objections to the idea are irrelevant for Islam.

Texts believed to included docetism

Non-canonical Christian texts

See also

Footnotes

  1. González 2005, p. 46
  2. Strecker 2000, p. 438.
  3. Schneemelcher & Maurer, p. 220 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSchneemelcherMaurer (help).
  4. Breidenbaugh 2008, pp. 179–181
  5. Smith & Wace 1877, pp. 867–870.
  6. Ridgeon 2001, p. xv.
  7. Arendzen 2012.
  8. Brox, 1984 & pp301-314 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrox1984pp301-314 (help).
  9. Scheemelcher & Maurer, p. 220 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFScheemelcherMaurer (help):"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.'
  10. Price 2009.
  11. Ehrman 1996, p. 197.
  12. Larsen 2008, p. 347
  13. ^ Gavrilyuk 2004, p. 80. Cite error: The named reference "Gavrilyuk2004" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  14. Schneemelcher & Maurer, p. 220 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSchneemelcherMaurer (help)
  15. Brox 1984, p. 314.
  16. González 2005, pp. 46–7
  17. Ashwin-Siejkowski 2010, p. 95, n.2 citing Edwards 2002, p. 25.
  18. Street 2011, p. 40 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStreet2011 (help).
  19. Streett 2011, pp. 42–43.
  20. Shailer 1917, p. 37 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFShailer1917 (help).
  21. Conybeare 1914, p. 104.
  22. 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."
  23. Ridgeon 2001, p. xv.

References

External links

  • Docetae in the Catholic Encyclopedia
Categories: