Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 04-03-2004, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is it so clear that the Docetists, who believed that Jesus was an incorporeal spirit who only seemed human, are HJ'ers?

Yes, it is.

Yes, if you believed Jesus walked around in Jerusalem. Turned water into wine in Cana of Galilee. If you think he taught his disciples stuff and delivered the sermons to large audience in Galilee and Judaea. If you think these things you believe Jesus existed on earth--whether his flesh was real or spiritually animated.

Quote:

When this issue came up before, I quoted a passage from Freke and Gandy's Jesus Mysteries in which they claim the Docetists as fellow mythicists, on the grounds that talking about an incorporeal Jesus who walked through walls was in effect speaking of a mythical spiritual entity. This was rejected because F&G are not scholarly enough, but not for any other reason.

Well, I do not take them seriously. But the idea collapses on its own lack of merits.

Quote:

Doherty's take on Docetism is at p. 307 of the book The Jesus Puzzle. He asks if it is reasonable to assume that everyone accepted Jesus of Nazareth as a real human for almost a century, and then suddenly some raise the objection that Jesus was not human after all. He thinks it is more likely that Christ started off as a spiritual entity who had undergone suffering in the heavenly realm at the hands of demon spirits. By the time of Ignatius and Cerinthus, the idea came into focus that there had been a historical flesh and blood Jesus who had suffered under Pontius Pilate; the Docetists were those who did not go along with this development, and preferred to describe Jesus as incorporeal.

Actually, given the cultural context of Christianity at the time it makes perfect sense. As Christianity became less Jewish and more Greek, the Greek focus on the spiritual and rejection of the physical world was bound to turn out just such heresies. What is unreasonable is to suppose that as Christianity got more Greek it developed on its own a Jewish focus on the physical world.

Quote:

F&G think that the ancients were not stupid, and knew that there were no ghosts who could walk through walls, and that therefore the Docetist story is obviously meant as an allegory and is not evidence that the Docetists thought that Jesus would have appeared as human if they could take a time machine back a century.

The Docetists can speak for themselves and do. Jesus walked around on earth and did the things the gospels said he did. Except being born and related frail and Jewish things.

Given the cultural contexts at issue, Maurice Gougel's explanation is much more reasonable, likely, and perusasive:

Quote:

SECTION II.—DOCETISM.

Docetism is the opinion of those who believed that in the person of Jesus the human element was only an appearance. Such as we find this belief, for instance in Marcion and in many second-century Gnostics, Docetism is not an affirmation of historical order: it is an interpretation of the history on which the Christian faith was based. Among the second-century theologians, and even those of the first century, there are found side by side these two theses: Jesus is a man and He is God. Herein was presented a problem for Christian thought: How define in the person of the Christ the relation between the human element and the divine? The most diverse attempts were made in ancient Christianity to solve this problem up to the time when the orthodox doctrine was fixed. There were attempts which sacrificed one of the terms of the problem, either in making of the Christ a mere man raised to the heavens by His resurrection, or, on the contrary, by reducing the humanity in Him to but a mere appearance.

That which the Docetists of the second century denied, was not that the story narrated by the evangelists was real, but that the humanity of the person to whom the story referred was anything more than a mere appearance or a garment worn by a divine Being. Docetism is a theological opinion; it is not an historical affirmation.

Such is particularly the character of Marcion's system, that deep and daring thinker who in the first half of the second century gave, concerning the Christianity which he sought to free from every link with Judaism, an interpretation so original and so fertile, and which Harnack compares to those of the apostle Paul and St. Augustine. In Marcion's view Christ had not been begotten; He had nothing of the human about Him; He was and remains a Spirit. He appeared in human form (in hominis forma); His body was but an appearance. It is necessary to conceive Him as like the angels who appeared to Abraham, who ate and drank and performed all the actions of human life[5] (Gen. xviii. 2-8). Harnack writes: "The Christ of Marcion is a God who appears in human form, feels, acts and suffers like a man, although the identification with a carnal body, naturally begotten, is in His case merely an appearance. It is incorrect, then, to assert that according to Marcion Christ did not suffer, and only died in appearance. This is the opinion His adversaries attributed to Him, but He only predicated appearance to the substance of the flesh of Christ."

Marcion was so far from denying the Gospel history that he accepted a Gospel (that of Luke) which he had only purged of what he considered Judaising additions. This he adapted to his ideas, particularly in suppressing the narration of the birth of Jesus and in making His history begin at the baptism....

Indeed, the question discussed by the Docetists was not whether there had lived a man in the time of Pilate named Jesus, who acted, suffered and died, but the problem was to determine the nature of His manifestation....

The conclusion we reach is therefore quite clear: The Docetists did not contest the Gospel history. They were Christian idealists, attached above all to the notion of the divinity of Christ and the celestial character of His person, who attempted to give it an interpretation harmonizing with their ideas. So understood, Docetism was only able to develop in the soil of evangelical tradition. If the Docetists had had the slightest reason to think that Christ was no more than an ideal person without historical reality, they would not have expended such treasures of ingenuity to give an interpretation of His story which cut Him off completely from too intimate contact with humanity. The Docetists thus appear as witnesses to Gospel tradition.

Maurice Gougel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History, pages 72-79.

Vorkosigan · 04-03-2004, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

I know that Marcion believed in such a historical person. He might not like the term man, but he believed was real, moved around, taught and did miracles on earth. That is not the JM. The JM says Jesus was never on earth. Marcion and the like said Jesus was on earth but he was not really human. Thus he believes in a HJ, just not the same kind of HJ as orthodox Christians.

The JM says that Jesus was originally never on earth. Doherty's argument is that an earthly existence is a later evolution of the Jesus legends. That Docetists in the second century bought the gospel stories in some way does not make the become less fictional. That does not disrupt Doherty's thesis at all.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 04-04-2004, 12:20 AM

Previous thread: Did Marcion Believe in a HJ?

The section from Freke and Gandy is at p. 120 of the American hardback edition of the [/i]Jesus Mysteries[/i].

It is hard to let the Docetists speak for themselves, since we only have what their opponents chose to save and argue against, and it appears that there was no consensus among the Docetists.

GakuseiDon · 04-04-2004, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I have already dealt with this. Anytime you can prove...
WHAT WAS IN TATIAN'S MIND WHEN HE WROTE THE HARMONY
....I will be happy to listen.

Actually, I was addressing Tatian's "Address to the Greeks".

What did Tatian have in mind when he wrote the Harmony of the Gospels? I don't know. I'm not sure why it is relevent. Does the fact that he tried to harmonise the Gospels mean that he wasn't a believer in Jesus Christ?

GakuseiDon · 04-04-2004, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Previous thread: Did Marcion Believe in a HJ?

The section from Freke and Gandy is at p. 120 of the American hardback edition of the [/i]Jesus Mysteries[/i].

It is hard to let the Docetists speak for themselves, since we only have what their opponents chose to save and argue against, and it appears that there was no consensus among the Docetists.

Thanks Toto. I hadn't realised I'd already posted in that thread on that very topic!

GakuseiDon · 04-04-2004, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Here is what I wrote earlier that you have now been ignoring for three pages.

(1) Don, I am saying that evidence does not permit us to make the positive conclusion that Tatian was a following of Jesus Christ when he wrote the Address to the Greeks, for such a person is never mentioned in the Address. If want to show that in 160 Tatian was a Christer, point out the direct evidence.

(1) We have direct evidence from Irenaeus that Tatian was a member of the Church and a hearer of Justin. Tatian calls Justin "admirable" and associates himself with Justin in "Address to the Greeks", so he knew him at that time.
(2) Tatian was an Encratite later on. So at ALL times after Tatian met Jusatin, we have evidence that he was a Christian of some description.
(2) We have circumstantial evidence in the fact that the AttG was used by HJers for the next two hundred years, and was praised by Eusebius as being his most useful.

You said that you doubt that Tatian was a member of the Church. On what grounds do you dismiss Irenaeus?

Quote:

Additionally, a fragment of Tatian cited elsewhere says:
"Tatian, who maintaining the imaginary flesh of Christ, pronounces all sexual connection impure, who was also the very violent heresiarch of the Encratites, employs an argument of this sort: "If any one sows to the flesh, of the flesh he shall reap corruption;" but he sows to the flesh who is joined to a woman; therefore he who takes a wife and sows in the flesh, of the flesh he shall reap corruption.--HIERON.: Com. in Ep. ad Gal.

However, this is apparently from the later period of Tatian's "apostasy."

So why bring it up? That isn't in question.

Quote:

(2) To defend his Logos religion, which is outlined at great length, against Greek philosophy. Here are some of his descriptions of this belief:

In chapter IV of Address to the Greeks, Tatian writes God alone is to be feared,--He who is not visible to human eyes, nor comes within the compass of human art. Only when I am commanded to deny Him, will I not obey, but will rather die than show myself false and ungrateful. Our God did not begin to be in time: He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the beginning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works. I refuse to adore that workman ship which He has made for our sakes. The sun and moon were made for us: how, then, can I adore my own servants? How can I speak of stocks and stones as gods? For the Spirit that pervades matter is inferior to the more divine spirit; and this, even when assimilated to the soul, is not to be honoured equally with the perfect God. Nor even ought the ineffable God to be presented with gifts; for He who is in want of nothing is not to be misrepresented by us as though He were indigent.But I will set forth our views more distinctly.

It is difficult to square his comment....

"God is a Spirit, not pervading matter,"

with any HJ. You will note that there is not a breath of Jesus in here AT ALL. But he continues through four chapters (IV-VII) in this vein, talking of the Resurrection --without mentioning Jesus. Don, that's not really silence that is amenable to either HJ or MJ explanation. Tatian is obviously an adherent of some Logos philosophy. Furthermore, Tatian in this discourse affirms that there is only God ALONE:

"....will restore the substance that is visible to Him alone to its pristine condition."

"For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (npostasis) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone" [at the beginning of all things]

"not having the nature of good, which again is with God alone," [if you read Tatian as an Christer, how can god alone be good?]

There's not even the slightest hint of a Trinity in Tatian.

Read it carefully. He speaks of

Resurrection without Jesus
Women with naming any NT women
God and Logos without Jesus
Demons without mentioning that Jesus exorcised them
Healings by several Greek figures, without mentioning any by Jesus (a whole chapter on healing, no Jesus)
Impregnations by gods without mentioning Mary
The soul rising to god without Jesus' intercession
The soul getting eternal life without knowledge of Jesus
Says Christian doctrine is opposed to dissensions, without apologizing for Judas or Paul vs. Jerusalem or then-current heretics.
Attempts to date age of religion by Moses, not by Jesus or Abraham or any other.

Again he says
"The perfect God is without flesh; but man is flesh."

Please, if you can, reconcile that with Jesus being the God Made Flesh. When Tatian says his god was born in the form of a man -- note that "in the form of" is he talking about Christian god? He specifically rejects that Jesus became flesh. The comparisons that he uses are from the Greek myths, of gods who temporarily took on the likeness of mortals.

You will also note that he rejected meat eating in this missive:

"You slaughter animals for the purpose of eating their flesh, and you
purchase men to supply a cannibal banquet for the soul"

and after Justin died this was also his position. That may indicate a continuity of belief.

But here's more on God's flesh according to Tatian:

"One of you asserts that God is body, but I assert that He is without body; that the world is indestructible, but I say that it is to be destroyed;"

If God is without body, what is Jesus?

Vork, I say that none of these things were a problem for HJers of the time. We have positive evidence for this from Eusebius. Would a work that dismissed the central tenets of the HJers of the time have been so widely regarded? Can you give me another example?

Vork, do you have evidence that any of the points you raise were a problem for HJers of the period?

Vorkosigan · 04-04-2004, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

(1)
Vork, do you have evidence that any of the points you raise were a problem for HJers of the period?

Apparently not. You're right, Tatian was an HJer from the get-go.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon · 04-04-2004, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Apparently not. You're right, Tatian was an HJer from the get-go.

Vorkosigan

Seriously, I think the evidence is strongly in that favour. Thanks.

Attonitus · 04-04-2004, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

I know that Marcion believed in such a historical person. He might not like the term man, but he believed was real, moved around, taught and did miracles on earth. That is not the JM. The JM says Jesus was never on earth. Marcion and the like said Jesus was on earth but he was not really human. Thus he believes in a HJ, just not the same kind of HJ as orthodox Christians.

The docetism it is a problematic locus to establish a HJ. According to this christology Christ's divinity was irreconcilable with the fact of a physical born. Baur say that the docetism it sustaint that the human appearance of Christ is mere illusion and has no objective reality. The docetism it is a christology constructed without an adequate basis in a historical reconstruction of Jesus' identity. The Jesus that walks around Jerusalem is merely a ghost, here doesn't exist any base to sustaint a HJ.

spin · 04-04-2004, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

(1) We have direct evidence from Irenaeus that Tatian was a member of the Church and a hearer of Justin. Tatian calls Justin "admirable" and associates himself with Justin in "Address to the Greeks", so he knew him at that time.
(2) Tatian was an Encratite later on. So at ALL times after Tatian met Jusatin, we have evidence that he was a Christian of some description.
(2) We have circumstantial evidence in the fact that the AttG was used by HJers for the next two hundred years, and was praised by Eusebius as being his most useful.

I'm quite interested in the imaginative construction of the Roman church underlying this argumentation. This is after all the same church which housed Marcion for over a decade without any problem. Perhaps it was Justin's appearance in Rome which caused the stir. He was after all not Roman, born in what was to become Nablus (Flavia Neapolis) in Palestine and lived in Ephesus before making two trips to Rome, the second of which he had a school there.

But then, this church also permitted Valentinus as well. Such an accommodating church could easily house a Tatian. Have you noticed how none of the great church fathers came from Rome?? (Clement of Rome?)

I think all the assumptions based on Tatian being in the church die along with the fact that both Valentinus and Marcion had no problems for quite some time. Just imagine what sort of community could allow Marcion, Valentinus and Tatian . . .

Oh, and what's the big deal over the "Oratio ad Graecos"? It did a good job putting the boot into Greek ideas (while somewhat expressing them in a Greek manner). Did it matter the source so much?

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-04-2004, 12:20 AM	#23
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Previous thread: Did Marcion Believe in a HJ? The section from Freke and Gandy is at p. 120 of the American hardback edition of the [/i]Jesus Mysteries[/i]. It is hard to let the Docetists speak for themselves, since we only have what their opponents chose to save and argue against, and it appears that there was no consensus among the Docetists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.