Ben C Smith

As far as the anthropomorphic principle is concerned, I think docetism goes well beyond anthropomorphism. The docetics, AFAICT, really thought that a divine being walked this earth who was not in fact human but in every way seemed (hence the name docetic, from the Greek for seem) to be human. That is different than just speaking of the arm of the Lord or the eyes or ears of God.

Even if their entire argument was designed to explain how a being who in every way seemed to be human was actually not, who seemed to suffer actually did not?

Like when Abraham thought he was talking to men but they were really angels? Like when Joshua thought he was speaking to a human soldier who was really the captain of the heavenly host? The docetic concept of looking human but not being human is ancient.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Thanks Ben! You have made my case for me! That is unless you are going to insist that these were real human beings!

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

No, but in the stories the main characters presumed they were human beings before they found out they were divine.

Recall that I said we might in your scenario have a good argument for a layer of historicity behind the docetism; I am not saying that we would have to find a real person behind the docetism, only that we would probably find a class of people who presumed Jesus was a real person before the docetists came along with arguments that he was really not.

Docetism, perhaps unlike gnosticism, looks reactionary to me, but again, I am not as familiar with it as I would like to be. Perhaps I am reading it too much through the lens of the church fathers or something. It seems to me a worthy question: What would docetism look like without accompanying claims that the docetic individual was really human?

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

But it also didn't take place in the sub-lunar realm either.

S.C.Carlson

It looks reactionary to me too. I cannot make sense of it except as an attempt to reconcile Jesus as God and Jesus as Man and therefore presupposes both. (Now, as to which of these two concepts came first, Jesus as God or Jesus as Man, I leave to our regularly scheduled MJ vs. HJ debate.)

Stephen

jakejonesiv

Hi Stephen,

I don't think the sub-lunar realm theory is correct. In fact, I find it extremely unlikely.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Let's break it down. You mentioned:

You have mentioned above that the writers of the Hebrew scriptures conceived of divine beings that could take on the appearance of men, but were not real human beings at all. They came down straight from heaven, they weren't born from human parents.

They placed these fantastic beings into seemingly historical scenes. This seems to me to be a good precedent for the docetic conception of Jesus.

Many Christians (Justin for one) have thought that the Angel of the Lord and the Captain of the heavenly host were pre-gospel appearances of Jesus.

Yep, that's it. Jesus was an imaginary visitor from heaven who was placed in a fictional earthly setting. ymmv

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

The docetic conception is really nothing more than an extended theophany. Theophanies are quite old, going back to the Hebrew scriptures. What is reactionary is to assign real human flesh to the divine appearnce. (If I had to guess that came from Greek religions, but that is for another thread).
I would say the docetic/theophany model is older than the God-and-man-at-the-same-time model.

Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

You make a very good point here. I can see this kind of docetism, if that is the word for it, as preceding historicism. In fact, this would be rather like what Stephen said about whether Jesus as God or Jesus as man came first; either would be possible.

It would seem I was closer to the truth when I said that I was possibly reading docetism through the eyes of the church fathers. In light of what they say about the docetics I do not think in retrospect that my analogy with Joshua and Abraham was very fitting. Docetic beliefs as the fathers relay them appear to be trying to explain certain details away (such as suffering on the cross), while there is nothing in the Joshua or Abraham accounts that is trying to explain away attributes of the angelic beings.

So I retract my statement that docetics (in the broadest sense of the word) would probably not precede historicists. Only those docetics who are evidently reacting to gospel details (that is, docetics in the narrower, historical, patristic sense) would be unlikely to precede historicists.

But if you are trying to press Paul into such a broadly docetic category you might consider not using that term for it, since others might like myself be misled into thinking in terms of the historical docetism that apparently, for instance, denied that Jesus really suffered on the cross; I certainly do not see Paul fitting that tighter category very well.

Ben.

Amaleq13

What other term could he use?