Docetism

Template:Short description Template:Distinguish Template:Christology

In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Template:Langx dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"<ref>Template:Harvnb: "A term derived from the Greek dokein, to seem, or to appear."</ref><ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref>) 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.<ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref><ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref> Broadly, it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion.

The word {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} Dokētaí ("Illusionists") referring to early groups who denied Jesus's humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197–203),Template:Sfn 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.Template:Sfn<ref>Template:Harvnb. 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.</ref> 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".<ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref>

Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325<ref name="Ridgeon 2001 xv">Template:Harvnb.</ref> and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Armenian Apostolic Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church,Template:Sfn and many Protestant denominations that accept and hold to the statements of these early church councils, such as Calvinist (Reformed Christians), Reformed Baptists, Waldensians, and all Trinitarian Christians.

DefinitionsEdit

Docetism is broadly defined as the teaching that claims that Jesus' body was either absent or illusory.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The term 'docetic' is rather nebulous.<ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref><ref>Template:Harvnb: "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 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.<ref>Template:Harvnb</ref>

Christology and theological implicationsEdit

Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. Ernst Käsemann controversially defined the Christology of the Gospel of John as "naïve docetism" in 1968.<ref>Template:Harvnb.</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>Template:Harvnb</ref> It has occasionally been argued that its origins were in heterodox Judaism or Oriental and Grecian philosophies.<ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref> The alleged connection with Jewish Christianity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) monotheism.<ref>Template:Harvnb</ref><ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref> Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, 1 John Template:Bibleverse-nb appearing explicitly to reject them.<ref name="González2005">Template:Harvnb</ref> Some 1stTemplate:Nbhyphcentury Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to non-Christian ways of thinking about divinity.<ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref>

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] 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.<ref>Template:Harvnb citing Template:Harvnb.</ref> 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.<ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref> In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, written around 110Template:NbspAD, 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.{{#if:|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries
}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

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.<ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref>

Islam and docetismEdit

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}}

Some commentators have attempted to make a connection between Islam and docetism using the following Quranic verse:<ref name=parrinder>Template:Cite book</ref>

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. Template:Cite Quran Ayah {{#if:|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries
}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

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.<ref>Template:Harvnb.</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Docetism and Christ myth theoryEdit

Template:See also 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".Template:Sfn Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare thought any connection to be based on a misunderstanding of docetism.Template:Sfn 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".Template:Sfn