| Revision as of 06:11, 15 March 2012 editBruceGrubb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,222 edits added reference← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:14, 17 March 2012 edit undoDavidiad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,221 editsm polytonic now simply transcludes lang + grcNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| In ], '''docetism''' (from the ] {{ |
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 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> | ||
Revision as of 22:14, 17 March 2012
In Christianity, docetism (from the Greek δοκέω dokeō, "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; 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" (John 1:14) as merely figurative.
Docetism is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and many others.
Christology and theological implications
This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, many of whom believed that matter was evil, and as a result God 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 demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin.
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 resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view.
Docetism was an aberrant form of early Christianity, developing around 50 AD, which was most prominently espoused by Gnostic sects. Its origin within Christianity is obscure and it has been argued that its origins were in heterodox Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies. Some of the books of the New Testament condemn docetic teachings and the early creeds developed to counter docetic beliefs. 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. Docetism largely died out during the first millennium AD.
Ignatius of Antioch wrote against docetism around 110 AD in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. 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 Eucharist were (representationally or ontologically) the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Other detailed criticisms were given by Irenaeus and Tertullian.
Docetism and Christ myth theory
The relationship between Docetism and the Christ myth theory has been debated ever since Drews' particular version was published in 1909. Some hold that the Christ myth theory is a variant of docetism while others have argued that this connection is a misunderstanding of docetism.
In 1977, Classicist Michael Grant seemed to reinforce the idea that there was a connection between the various versions of the Christ myth theory and docetism:
"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.
Earl Doherty and Timothy Freke also support the idea that docetism and the nonexistence hypothesis are related.
Islam and docetism
The Qur'an Sura 4:157–158 reads:
"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 including 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, Augustine of Hippo makes reference to the Manichaeans believing that Jesus was Docetic.
- Gospel of Peter
- Acts of John
See also
- Christology
- Adoptionism
- Adoptivi
- Arianism
- Binitarianism
- Monophysitism
- Avatar
- Christian heresy
- Patripassianism
- Marcionism
- Eidolon (apparition)
- Islamic view of Jesus' death
References
- Smith, Sir William; William George Smith; Henry Wace (1877) A dictionary of Christian biography, literature, sects and doctrines pg 867-870
- newadvent.org
- Peter Kreeft, Everything you ever wanted to know about heaven – but never dreamed of asking, p. 25
- Strong, A.H. Systematic Theology. 1907
- ^ Paul L. Gavrilyuk (20 May 2004). The suffering of the impassible God: the dialectics of patristic thought. Oxford University Press. pp. 80–. ISBN 9780199269822. Retrieved 31 July 2010. Cite error: The named reference "Gavrilyuk2004" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- Justo L. González (15 April 2005). Essential theological terms. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 46–. ISBN 9780664228101. Retrieved 31 July 2010.
- Mathews, Shailer (1917) The spiritual interpretation of history Page 37.
- Foreman, Dale (1990) Crucify Him: A Lawyer Looks at the Trial of Jesus pg 46
- Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis (1914) The historical Christ pg 104
- (1934)The Congregational quarterly Congregational Union of England and Wales
- Grant, Michael (1977), Jesus: An Historian’s Review, pp. 199–200
External links
- Docetae in the Catholic Encyclopedia