Editing Docetism (section)

==Christology and theological implications==
Docetism's origin within Christianity is obscure. [[Ernst Käsemann]] controversially defined the [[Christology]] of the [[Gospel of John]] 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>{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004|p=80}}.</ref> The alleged connection with [[Jewish Christian]]ity would have reflected Jewish Christian concerns with the inviolability of (Jewish) [[monotheism]].<ref>{{harvnb|Schneemelcher|Maurer|1994|p=220}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Brox|1984|p=314}}.</ref> Docetic opinions seem to have circulated from very early times, [[Epistles of John#First Epistle of John|1 John]] {{bibleverse-nb|1 John|4:2|31}} appearing explicitly to reject them.<ref name="González2005">{{harvnb|González|2005|pp=46–7}}</ref> Some 1st{{nbhyph}}century Christian groups developed docetic interpretations partly as a way to make Christian teachings more acceptable to non-Christian ways of thinking about divinity.<ref>{{harvnb|Gavrilyuk|2004 |p=81}}.</ref>

In his critique of the theology of [[Clement of Alexandria]], [[Photios I of Constantinople|Photius]] in his [[Bibliotheca (Photius)|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>{{harvnb|Ashwin-Siejkowski|2010|p=95, n.2}} citing {{harvnb|Edwards|2002|p=23}}.</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>{{harvnb|Streett|2011|p=40}}.</ref> In his [[letter to the Smyrnaeans|letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1]], written around 110{{nbsp}}AD, he writes:
{{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.}} 
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 [[Ebionism|Ebionite]] or [[Cerinthus|Cerinthian]] possessionist Christology, according to which Christ was a heavenly spirit that temporarily possessed Jesus.<ref>{{harvnb|Streett|2011|pp=42–44}}.</ref>