Aspirin99

Since Docetism pre-dates the gospels, am I right to assume that the source for Docetism was Paul's writtings (any influence of Q or Sayings)?

andrewcriddle

IMO Docetism is later than the Synoptic Gospels.

It partly depends on when one thinks Docetism originated and partly on when one thinks the Gospels were written.

However most scholars think the Synoptic gospels were written before the end of the reign of Domitian, and we lack real evidence of Docetism before say the reign of Trajan.

Andrew Criddle

Aspirin99

Regarding your date on the Gospels, I have no huge reason to oppose it, but my gut feeling is that the final redactions were much later. Dating it based on mostly exegetical reasons (Domitian) does not provide a balanced enough view for me. The lack of early second century articulation on Gospel Authors makes me think that, while there may have been versions of the synoptics that were nearly complete, important final redactions occurred much later.

Nonetheless, your point is well taken. However, my cursory understanding of the docetist Cerinthus is that he could have been as early as 85 CE. I just need to study it more.

Clivedurdle

Ecole quotes Kaesemann as saying GJohn is docetic!

Aspirin99

I have wondered if the post resurrection passages in the Gospels that refer to appearances of Jesus where he was not recognized but later revealed that the person was Jesus developed from primitive docetic ideas. Further, later additions to the Gospel added text specifically to clear up this notition. For example, Luke 24, where Jesus is on the Road to Emmaus and he speaks to disciples but keeps them from recognizing him. This could have resulted in the interpretation that Jesus could change his non-flesh appearance at will.

Later, Luke 24 could have been supplemented with the passage where he asks the disciples to touch his wounds as proof that he was real flesh and blood (countering the docetic intereptation that resulted in earlier redaction). I've not thought this through. Just an idea.

Kenny

Clivedurdle

Has anyone attempted a complete rewrite and reordering of the New Testament to take into account accepted thinking about how late or early various ideas might be? What would it look like? Would Hebrews and Revelation be quite early?

Johnny Skeptic

There isn't any reasonable proof at all that Jesus actually died for the sins of mankind. In addition, there isn't any reasonable proof at all what he said about himself. Further, there is not any reasonable proof at all that he ever performed any miracles.

Chili

But it doesn't say he did. Jesus died for the sins of his world (we each have our own world and there are no sins except those of our world) and told us to die to the sins of our world.

Aspirin99

Not exactly what you're asking, but here's some interesting info related to that:

http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/corrupt.html

andrewcriddle

There are problems about both the date and teaching of Cerinthus.

However, the teaching attributed to him by Irenaeus; Jesus born naturally of Mary and Joseph and the Christ descending on him as a dove at Jesus' baptism strongly suggest influence of the Synoptic tradition.

IF Cerinthus is late 1st century (about which I'm undecided) he would be very early evidence of knowledge of the Synoptic tradition. Even with a later date for Cerinthus such as the reign of Trajan he would still be moderately important as an early witness to Synoptic like material.

Andrew Criddle