Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishidani (talk | contribs) at 16:59, 25 April 2012 (A few fixes, removing WP:OR and WP:Undue, and adopting a single bibliographical template.etc.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• 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

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

• Arendzen, J. (2012) . "Docetae". The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr (2010). "The Docetic View of Christ". Clement of Alexandria on Trial: The Evidence of "Heresy" from Photius' Bibliotheca. Vigiliae Christianae. Vol. 101. Brill. pp. 95–113. ISBN 978-0-195-18249-1. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Breidenbaugh, Joel R. (2008). "Docetism". In Hindson, Ed; Caner, Ergun; Verstraete, Edward J. (eds.). The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity. Harvest House Publishers. pp. 186–193. ISBN 978-0-736-92084-1. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Brox, Norbert (1984). "Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte". 95. Kohlhammer Verlag: 301–314. ISSN 0044-2925. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite journal}}: |chapter= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis (1914). The Historical Christ: Or, An Investigation of the Views of Mr. J. M. Robertson, Dr. A. Drews, and Prof. W. B. Open court Publishing Company. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Edwards, Mark J. (2002). Origen against Plato. Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-754-60828-8. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ehrman, Bart D. (1996). The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-74628-6. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Lost Christianities: The Battles For Scripture And The Faiths We Never Knew (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-195-18249-1. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Foster, Paul (2009). The Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Vol. 201. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-23694-7. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Gavrilyuk, Paul L. (2004). The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought. Oxford Early Christian Studies. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-26982-2. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• González, Justo L. (2005). Essential Theological Terms. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-22810-1. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Grant, Michael (2004) . Jesus. Rigel. ISBN 978-1-898-79988-7. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Larsen, Kasper Bro (2008). "Narrative Docetism: Christology and Storytelling in the Gospel of John". In Bauckham, Richard; Mosser, Carl (eds.). The Gospel of John and Christian Theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 346–355. ISBN 978-0-802-82717-3. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Price, Robert (2009). Review:Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teaching of the Original Christians. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Ridgeon, Lloyd V. J. (2001). Ridgeon, Lloyd V. J. (ed.). Islamic Interpretations of Christianity. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-312-23854-4. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Text "Introduction" ignored (help)
• Mathews, Shailer (2006) . The Spiritual Interpretation of History. Cosimo, Inc. ISBN 978-1-596-05138-6. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Schneemelcher, Wilhelm; Maurer, Christian (1994) . "The Gospel of Peter". In Schneemelcher, Wilhelm; Wilson, McLachlan (eds.). New Testament Apocrypha: Gospels and related writings. New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 1. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 216–227. ISBN 978-0-664-22721-0. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Smith, William George; Wace, Henry, eds. (1877). A dictionary of Christian biography, literature, sects and doctrines. John Murray. pp. 867–870. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Strecker, Georg (2000). Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm (ed.). Theology of the New Testament. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-110-15652-2. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Streett, Daniel R. (2011). They Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche. Vol. 177. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-110-24770-1. Retrieved 25 April 2012. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

External links

• Docetae in the Catholic Encyclopedia

• Heresy in Christianity
• Gnosticism
• Christology
• Christian terms