Docetism

by peacefulpete 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  I want to start a discussion about Docetic passages in the NT. Docetism was an ancient (some argue original) Christology that asserted that the Christ figure was not physically human but rather, being truly pure, merely took the appearance of flesh so as to commune with humans and teach the secret gnosis (knowledge).

  Marcion, for example, a second century proponent of Docetic Christianity understood his Christ to have descended from heaven in the form of a mature man. Passages like Matt 11:11a were retained by the later proto-orthodox (meaning those who's views eventually prevailed and became incorporated into Catholic dogma) scribes perhaps because they could be interpreted ambiguously dispite the docetic intent. Clearly the author was saying that his Christ had not been born of woman (literally or idiomatically ie:human). Please post other examples that demonstrate this early christology.

  Matt 11:11 "I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."
• 

  Leolaia

  Other passages that contain proto-docetic thoughts, or assume certain proto-docetic assumptions:

  Matthew 27:50
  "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit." (compare with the more docetic Gospel of Peter)

  Luke 23:43
  "Jesus answered him, 'I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.' " (also a heavenly ascension upon death) Luke 24:31
  "Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight." (proto-docetist epiphany story) Luke 24:39
  "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (reinterpreting the preceding proto-docetist story) John 1:14
  "The Word became flesh (sarx egeneto) and made his dwelling among us."

  John 6:33
  "For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

  John 6:38
  "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me." John 6:42
  "They said, 'Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" Romans 8:3
  "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (homoiomati sarkos hamartias) to be a sin offering." Philippians 2:6-8 "Although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form (morphen) of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness (homoiomati) of men. And being found in appearance (skhemati) as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross".

  I would stop short however of calling any of these references as fully docetic.
• 

  hooberus

  pete said: I want to start a discussion about Docetic passages in the NT.

  Using the phrase "Docetic passages" implies that these passages were actually docetic and/ or were written by someone with a docetic belief structure. It is like (incorrectly I believe) saying that a passage is a "Sabellian passage" because it is construed by some as teaching Sabellian doctrine.

  Marcion, for example, a second century proponent of Docetic Christianity understood his Christ to have descended from heaven in the form of a mature man. Passages like Matt 11:11a were retained by the later proto-orthodox (meaning those who's views eventually prevailed and became incorporated into Catholic dogma) scribes perhaps because they could be interpreted ambiguously dispite the docetic intent. Clearly the author was saying that his Christ had not been born of woman (literally or idiomatically ie:human). Please post other examples that demonstrate this early christology.
  

  Matt 11:11 "I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

  To say (supposedly based on Mark 11:11) that "Clearly the author was saying that his Christ had not been born of woman (literally or idiomatically ie:human)" is highly unwarranted.
• 

  hooberus

  Leolaia said: Luke 24:31
  "Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight." (proto-docetist epiphany story) Luke 24:39
  "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." (reinterpreting the preceding proto-docetist story)

  The use of the phrase "reinterpreting the preceeding proto-docetist story" implies that verse 39 was written a fair amount of time after verse 31, and that verse 39 was written to "correct" any wrong implications of verse 31.

  Such reasoning is not supported (to my knowledge) by empirical manuscript evidence. I believe that the oldest sections of Luke contain both verses.

  Luke's writing of the "disappearing" of Jesus from their sight, should not be taken as his denying the fleshly nature of the incarnation or resurrection. For example a few verses preceeding the vanishing from their sight says that Christ "suffered" (something that I doubt that a real docetist or "proto-docetist" would have included).

  26: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
  27: And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
  28: And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
  29: But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
  30: And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
  31: And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
• 

  Narkissos

  The overall narrative is often more telling than specific phrases:

  Mark 6:48ff:

  When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea. He intended to pass them by. But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

  Mark 9:2ff:

  Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!" Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.

  Also think of what is implied by sayings such as Mark 12:35ff:

  "How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet." ' David himself calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?"

  The Gospel of John is constantly toying with docetism. One example among many:

  Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.

  One interesting witness about the understanding of the Luke 24 story is the unauthentic yet canonical Mark 16:12:

  After this he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.
• 

  hooberus

  The Gospel of John is constantly toying with docetism. One example among many:

  Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.

  Christ claiming to have existed prior to his incarnation should not be taken as a denial of his earthly existence as a genuine human with flesh.
• 

  hooberus

  The overall narrative is often more telling than specific phrases:

  Mark 6:48ff:

  When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea. He intended to pass them by. But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid." Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened

  The overall narrative is actually against the concept of Jesus being a "ghost."
• 

  Leolaia

  hooberus.....Manuscript evidence is of limited use in assessing a document's integrity. There are many textual problems that do not have recourse to textual criticism, and the criticial literature is filled with examples of texts that are suspected to be revisions, interpolations, dislocations, etc. In any case, I actually did not say that the anti-docetic pericope in Luke was necesarily added later. I was pointing to its literary function in its current context. The original author may have included both stories, but placed the second after the first in order to make clear that docetism is not meant by the first story. The "Doubting Thomas" narrative in John has a similar function. Back to the first point, it is widely believed that the gospels were works in progress that went through several editions (see Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels).

  The notion of "suffering" in emphasized in the proto-gnostic thought of Paul (Romans 8:17; 2 Corinthians 1:5; Philippians 3:10; 1 Thessalonians 1:6, 2:14), so that too needs to be taken into account.
• 

  Narkissos

  The Gospel of John is constantly toying with docetism. One example among many:

  Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.

  Christ claiming to have existed prior to his incarnation should not be taken as a denial of his earthly existence as a genuine human with flesh.

  OK, so who is the "I" who says that? Is it the man who was not even 50 years old as the previous verse carefully notes?

  Actually, when you think of it, the 4th-century "orthodox" doctrine of the incarnation and the two natures of Christ is little more than a new variant of the older docetism. They basically say the same thing, i.e. Jesus is more than a man (remember the recurring question of the disciples in Mark, "who is this one?"). What the Gospels express in a way similar to the Hellenistic stories of gods assuming a human form and visiting men ingognito (cf. the allusion to the phrygian story of Philemon and Baucis in Acts 14:11f), the later orthodox theology expresses in the form of God's Son assuming human nature. There is a difference in expression, but it is still basically the same mythological concept.

  Btw, another interesting text is Luke 4:29f:

  They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Pete

  Lets not forget the book of 2nd John was written to oppose that teaching.

  2John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

  D Dog