yalla

But it was the "original". Or close to it in some way. In a particular sense.

I agree that Ehrman shows that ''loose'' was not original.

But the redaction shows that somebody was thinking, saying, writing the idea that JC was a separated being or concept.

And so someone [the redactor] responded to that idea which was "out there''.

The presence of the redaction shows that some [proto-orthodox] saw a need to correct/refute an incorrect idea [in their opinion] that was circulating at that time [Ehrman guesses 2c].

So we are left with the suggestion [or fact] that around that time Christians had different concepts as to the divine/fleshly/whatever nature of J or C or JC.
Hence it reinforces a mythical JC hypothesis in that it shows the nature of JC was not a concept set in concrete.
cheers
yalla

aa5874

Do you mean, Docetism= Jesus was a holograph that spoofed everyone, but a story that never happened in the physical world.

Kosh

No.

aa5874

But, 'holograph' means 'a document all of which was written by hand by its author or signatory'. (webster's dictionary)

Docetism means 'a feature of several Christian heresies which proceeded from dualistic thought to attribute to the person of Christ only an apparent manhood and an illusory suffering'. (webster's)

Myth means 'an old traditional story or legend, especially one concerning fabulous or supernatural beings. (webster's)

Jesus could not have been apparent, he was either real or mythical. Apparent manhood and illusory suffering are made of myths.

gnosis92

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

Docetism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκ�*ω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.

This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin. Humanity is, in essence, asleep.

Docetism could be further explained as the view that, because the human body is temporary and the spirit is eternal, the body of Jesus therefore must have been an illusion and his crucifixion as well. It could be compared to how a Buddhist speaks about illusion: illusion is everything that is temporary, not everything that is not real. Even so, saying that the human body is temporary has a tendency to undercut the importance of the belief in resurrection of the dead and the goodness of created matter, and is in opposition to this orthodox view.

Docetism was rejected by the ecumenical councils and mainstream Christianity, and largely died out during the first millennium A.D. Catharism, and other surviving gnostic movements, incorporated docetism into their beliefs, but the movement was destroyed by the Albigensian Crusade, though it's teachings still exist today, for example see [1].

Islam also teaches that Jesus's crucifixion was an illusion. The Qur'an says, "They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them..."(4:157)

Kosh

I was thinking more along the lines of a Holographic image, or a Hologram.

ynquirer

Thus, the Christ spirit comes in the flesh of those that confess he comes in the flesh. Cool?

This is an odd Christology, never heard of. It departs from standard mythicism, which contends that early Christians believed that the Christ got flesh in a body of his own, the difference from human allegedly being they would have thought that Jesus' existence was not this-world but took place in an intermediate sphere between this world and haevens properly.

One this has been said, that 1 John supports the theory that a mythical Jesus was believed to take on the flesh of those that spoke truth every time they did so is belied by ancient Greek usage, whether classical or koine. (The distinction is relevant because most translations of perfect in 1 John 4:2 choose the classical meaning of a completed event - Jesus is come in the flesh - while the koine, postclassical fixing of aorist as past tense - Jesus came in the flesh - sounds as appropriate.)

In any event, if Jesus' coming were a repeated actuation depending on a contingent behavior by human beings, erchetai (present) instead of elêluthota (perfect) would apply.

ynquirer

And I agree with both of you in that important point.

That is standard procedure in every debate, not only in religious ones.

What it gives us is exact account that some Christians believed Jesus not to be of a fleshy nature, while mainstream quite energically affirmed that nature.

Think of it this way. People in the second century were as apt to be skeptic of events presumptively happened in the first as we now are. Additionally, they lacked our means to scrutinize data. Therefore, we are just replicating the controversy evidenced by 1 John and 2 John.

Now, unless you can prove that the unfleshy Jesus Christ was prior to the fleshy one and then overthrown by the fleshy Jesus' supporters, available data so far fairly clearly indicates that docetism was a later departure from the original belief.

yalla

With you all the way until the last sentence.
[Nit pick, this is separationism not docetism, there is, apparently, a difference, but as I said, nit pick].

jakejonesiv

Hi ynquirer,

That is a well stated reply! Thanks.

I can see by your comments on "standard mythicism" that I moved too fast. Apologies.

I guess that attests to Earl Doherty's success! His theories have become identified as "standard mythicism." Thus, everytime one hears the suggestion that Jesus was not a historical person, they naturally run it through the "Jesus Puzzle" paradigm. This has led some to believe that if they can refute Earl in a point, they have somehow refuted the case against the Jesus Myth. Nothing is further from the truth.

The spirits that speak in 1 John 4:1-4 are not necessarily the Christ spirit. The test in 1 John 4:1-4 is to tell if the spirits are "from God." But yes, the Christ spirit was thought to have possesssed the bodies of certain people, such as Paul (read Gal 2:20 literally, Paul is the incarnation of the heavenly Christ on earth Gal. 4:14). This is related to adoptionist Christologies (see below). This is a meaning of "Christ in the flesh."

But before I get to that, it requires a lengthy preamble. The first thing I must note is that Christianity in the second century (which is the earliest Christianity we know anything about), there were many different factions and sects. These, IMO arose from different origins and only gradually combined into what we know as Christianity today. Thus we find a wide variety of views concerning the nature of Jesus. We should expect contradictions, even among the heretics.

When we open our Bibles to 1 John we find that the proto-orthodoxy faced a serious challenge from those who did not conceive of a human Jesus.

"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ [is come in the flesh]
is not of God" 1 John 4:3.

Opinions vary on who the opponents were in 1 John, but Bart D. Ehrman in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture argues convincingly that the opponents were docetic Christians (page 133). (Those in 2:18-22 are not necessarily the same group). It is noteworthy that "spirits" (4:3) are at odds. Ecstatic utterances from different members of the congregation were contradicting each other.

The term "docetic" comes from the Greek dokein which means "to seem" or "to appear". The Docetics believed that Jesus was not human, but a divine being and thus only seemed to have human flesh. This Jesus was a phantom as in Mark 6:49. Being human in appearance only, Jesus could not have really suffered. Tertullian well realized these implications, "`for He suffered nothing who did not truly suffer; and a phantom could not truly suffer." Adv. Marc. III., c. 8; cf. De Carne Christi, c. 5.

The affirmative statements made by the author of 1 John reveal the opposing position.
#1. Jesus did not come in the flesh. 1 John 4:2-3.
#2. Jesus could not be seen or heard. 1 John 1:1-4. (Except by those of perception?)
#3. Jesus came by water only, not by blood. 1 John 5:6. This is confusing, but may be related to the notion that Christ used Mary as
a mere conduit into the world rather than taking on flesh. "Christ, moreover, was sent by that First-Father who is Bythus. He, moreover, was not in the substance of our flesh; but, bringing down from heaven some spiritual body or other, passed through the Virgin Mary as water
through a pipe, neither receiving nor borrowing aught thence." Valentinus according to Tertullian, _ Appendix. Against All Heresies
_ chapter IV. If this is true, 1 John should be dated up to a hundred years later than is commonly thought.

Likewise the Ignatians, who battle the same foes, should be dated to the late second century. See Ignatius, Smyraeans, Chapters 2 and 4;

Trallians, Chapter 10.

Many scholars, including Erhman, consider Adoptionist or Separatist Christologies to precede the Docetic. However, that is not the order defined in the work ascribed to Tertullian cited above.

The earliest heretics (namely Simon Magus, Meander, Saturninus, and Basilide) are described as Docetic: Christ had come in merely phantasmal shape, devoid of the substance of flesh, he had not suffered among the Jews.

It is only later (see Chapter 3), that heretics (such as Carpocrates, Cerinthus, and Ebion) that had evolved an Adpotionist or Separatist view of Christ are described. This argues against the Ebionites being an early strand of Christianity.

The question then is, which conception was original, the Docetic Jesus or the proto-orthodox Jesus as flesh? And what effect, if any, does the answer have on the larger question of the existence of the Historical Jesus?

There are some indications that the Docetic Jesus was original. In what has (perhaps inaccurately) been called a "Pre-Pauline Hymn" Jesus is described as a divine being that takes on only the _likeness_ and _appearance_ of men. Phillipians 2:6-8. He appeared in the _likeness_ of sinful flesh. Romans 8:3.

Turning to the gospels, in what sense can Jesus be human, who even before the alleged resurrection walks on water (Mark 6:49), reads minds, and cannot be grasped by his enemies (Luke 4:29-30)?

The Gospel of John consists of mixed messages about Jesus. Is GJohn sponsoring docetism or trying to oppose it? Along side the portrayal of a seemingly Docetic Jesus are blatant contradictions that he was real flesh. The best explanation for this IMHO is that an originally Docetic document was redacted by proto-orthodox scribes who inserted pro-flesh statements, of which John 1:1-18; 6:51-66; 19:34f are notable examples. Consider the schizophrenic resurrection appearances where the phantom appears behind locked doors, insists that he is flesh, but nobody actually checks it out. That's right. Jesus allegedly invites Thomas to put his fingers and hand inside the apparent wounds, but Thomas does no such thing. He believes based on the appearance only. More blessed are those who believe without seeing anything! John 20:19-29.

We find the same thing in Luke 24:36-39. Jesus appears in a ghostly manner and invites his disciples to touch him. Well, they don't touch him, and still don't believe (v. 40) so he eats fish. It is not said that this is convincing either. It is only when Jesus reads the scriptures that their "minds are opened" (v. 44,45). I think this is revealing: the reality of Jesus is not in physical existence, but "in the scriptures." This is a point Earl Doherty has made before, but not that I am aware in this context.

Jake Jones IV