What is Docetism?

By the end of the first century, some Jewish Christians began to deny Jesus had a physical body. This teaching became known as Docetism. Condemened as a heresy, Docetism was motivated by a strong belief Jesus was God but also by a belief material things are inherently evil The logic of the teaching is based on the Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic) idea that matter is evil. Since matter is evil and Christ is good, he could not have had a physical body. If Christ really suffered, then he was not divine, since God cannot suffer (Burchard, 326).

Fuzzy Jesus, DocetismFrequently Docetism is seen as part of the larger theology of Gnosticism, and therefore more or less a “Greco-Roman Philosophy” or perhaps even an early Christian attempt to develop a rational non-Jewish theology which would appeal to the larger Roman world.  Since it was strange to imagine a god really becoming flesh and submitting to death on a cross, some Christians described Jesus as only having the appearance of human flesh.The name Doceticism comes from the Greek δοκέω (dokeo), meaning to “appear” or “seem.”

But it is possible Docetism more Jewish than pagan. If 1 John was written from Ephesus in the late 80’s or early 90’s, it is at least plausible John was reacting to a Jewish Christian attempt to explain who Jesus was. Rather than making Christianity more palatable to Romans, Docetism would be appealing to Jews who found the idea of “God made flesh” contradictory to their view of a completely transcendent God.

Docetism is sometimes associated with a group of Jewish Christians known as the Ebionites. They Ebionites were ascetic and lived a live of voluntary poverty in the desert. This voluntary poverty is similar to early Jewish Christians in Acts 2 who sold their possessions to supply the needs of the group. It is also possible they followed Jesus’s example and live a life of voluntary poverty. Although they rejected sacrifice, they thought many of the Jewish traditions were still of value, especially circumcision. Bart Ehrman describes the Ebionites as similar to Paul’s opponents in Galatia. Since they were a Jewish Christian group, they used only Matthew as scripture, but they also rejected Paul completely (Ehrman, Lost Christianities, 99).

It is common to associate the Docetic heresy with Cerinthus, a view dating to the second century. Irenaeus reported a tradition from Polycarp, who claimed John would not use the same bathhouse because Cerinthus, “the enemy of truth” was inside (Haer. 3:3.4). Based on this tradition, the Gospel of John and 1 John were written to answer the developing belief Jesus did not come in the flesh.Take, for example, the first line of 1 John, where the writer says he “touched Jesus with his hands.” In John 4:2-3 anyone who denies “Jesus came in the flesh” is the “spirit of antichrist.”

But as Colin Kruse observes,

“While it might be attractive to identify the opponents of 1 John with Cerinthus and his followers, seeing that there is evidence that the disciple of the Lord did know of him and repudiate his teaching, nevertheless this identification is highly unlikely” (21).

The real problem with this identification is that Docetism as a Jewish viewpoint would have developed in Palestine, not Ephesus. It is possible John’s gospel was developed while he was still doing ministry in the Land, and that the fall of Jerusalem forced Jews out of the Land, many of whom ended up in places like Ephesus and Corinth. But this objection does not take into account the large Jewish population in Ephesus in the late first-century.  John’s work in Ephesus may have been with Jewish Christian congregations in the city rather than with primarily Gentile, Pauline congregations.

What is there in 1 John to indicate he is answering an inadequate view of who Jesus was? The evidence is in the opening paragraph: but runs throughout the book.

Bibliography:  G. L. Burchard, “Docetism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986); Derek Brown, “Docetism,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016); Gareth Lee Cockerill, “Cerinthus (Person),” The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:885. Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities. (Oxford University Press, 2003); Colin G Kruse. The Letters of John (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke (PNTC)

Edwards, James R. The Gospel according to Luke. PNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2015. 831 pp. Hb; $65. Link to Eedrmans

James Edwards previously contributed the volume on Mark to the Pillar New Testament Commentary. It is unusual for a commentary series to assign two Synoptic Gospels to a single scholar. What is more, Edwards did not write the Acts commentary in the series, David G. Peterson did in 2009. This allows Edwards to read Luke without having a second commentary on Acts in mind. As a result, Luke nor Luke is not merely a prologue for Acts. Edwards notes in the preface he has not paid attention to reception history in the commentary, referring interested readers to François Bovon’s Hermneia commentary on Luke.Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke

At only 22 pages, the introduction to the commentary is brief, especially since it is divided into nine sections. Edwards accepts the traditional view the author of both Luke and Acts was a companion of Paul and quite possibly Jewish (10) native of Antioch (12), although he is less open to the suggestion Luke was a doctor (8). It is nearly certain Luke used the gospel of Mark, which Edwards dates about A.D. 65, suggesting a date for Luke’s Gospel about a decade later. If Like is dated after A.D. 70, then Luke 19:43-44 may be an allusion to the destruction of the city.

Edwards argues Luke used a Hebrew source along with Mark. In the introduction to this commentary, he briefly summarizes the argument of his The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (Eerdmans, 2009). There are, Edwards argues, a disproportionally large number of Semiticisms in the Gospel of Luke, especially in the unique material in the third Gospel. Semiticisms are words and phrases that can be best explained as reflecting a Hebrew or Aramaic original, such as the “divine passive.” Sometimes these phrases are called “Septuagintisms” because Luke sounds like the Septuagint. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is obviously based on a written Hebrew source and often reflects the style of the Hebrew original although it is written in Greek. Edwards finds many of these examples of Semiticisms in the Gospel, especially in the prologue.

With respect to the sayings source (Q), Edwards remains unconvinced. Of the approximately 175 verses usually associated with Q, some are narrative, and at least one is found in the Passion narrative. This so-called double tradition does not exhibit the semiticism found elsewhere in Luke (17). Edwards suspects the double tradition is the “skeletal remains” of one of Luke’s sources, and Matthew likely received the sayings from Luke, although this cannot be stated with certainty (17-18). The body of the commentary is not overly concerned with matters of Source Criticism. Most references to Hebraisms appear in the footnotes.

There are eleven excurses scattered throughout the commentary. These brief notes cover key terms in the Gospel (“Son of Man”), literary features (“Elijah and Elisha Typology,” “Pairs in the Third Gospel”), and historical issues (“Pharisees in Luke,” “Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas”). These are useful and placed at appropriate places in the commentary. When Edwards offers some additional detail on a historical, exegetical or geographical point within the commentary, which is shorter than an excursus, the theme is identified in bold print (tax collectors, 3:11; slavery. 16:1-9).

The body of the commentary follows Edward’s outline of twenty-two sections, roughly equivalent to about a chapter of Luke per section. Each unit is divided into several pericopae with comments on groups of verses rather than words or phrases. All Greek appears in transliteration, with most technical details relegated to the footnotes (textual variants, references to various theological dictionaries and wordbooks). Since there are few in-text notes, the commentary is very readable. Edwards has several memorable phrases, such as his description of perceptions of Jewish tax collectors as “the husk of an individual whose soul had been eaten away by complicity with Roman repression” (169). He is able to use brief contemporary illustrations to make the text clear, such as comparing the shrewd manager in 16:1-13 to a CEO who says, “You’ve turned your pink slip into a promotion” (455). Although this is an exegetical commentary that wrestles with lexical and syntactical issues, Edwards finds ways to elegantly draw out meaning and present it in language appreciated by students and busy pastors who desire to teach the text of Luke in various contexts.

The commentary often provides cultural details drawn from the Second Temple period practice. Commenting on 11:37-40, for example, Edwards explains the importance of ritual washing before meals, citing the work of Neusner (354). His observations about the piety of the Pharisee in 18:9-14 make it clear the Pharisee is “not to be denigrated for declaring his commendable record” (504) based on Tobit 1:6-8 and other early texts. His presentation of Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Temple refers to many Second Temple texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls (594).

In addition to the literature of the Second Temple period, Edwards draws on the insights of patristic writers throughout the commentary. There are numerous references to Origen’s Homilies on Luke and the writings of Justin Martyr, Jerome, and Eusebius.

Conclusion. Each volume of the Pillar series has been a solid contribution to scholarship, and Edward’s Luke commentary continues this legacy. There are more technical commentaries available, but this commentary is a pleasure to read and will serve pastors and teachers well as they continue to study the third Gospel.

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

 

Other volumes reviewed in this series:

James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke

Colin Kruse, The Letter to the Romans

Mark A. Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians

Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians

Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus

Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (No longer available from the publisher)

Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews

Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John (PNTC; Second Edition)

Free Books for Logos Bible Software – John Piper, Look at the Book

Look at the BookOnce again Logos is offering something a little different for their Free Book of the Month promotion.  Instead of a traditional book in the Logos format, the free “book” is John Piper’s Look at the Book, a series of 101 short videos on a wide variety of biblical texts.

Look at the Book is a “new online method of teaching the Bible,” in which the camera is on focus on the text, not the teacher. As John Piper speaks, the video shows him “underline, circle, make connections, and scribble notes.” Piper’s goal in the series is to help readers see what he sees and how he sees it.

These videos are accompanied by an outline for Piper’s teaching and a few study questions. Logos has a textbox below the question so you can type your answers which are saved as notes in the book. I could see this resource being used for a personal Bible Study or in a small group (listen to the video then discuss the questions). Since they are all around ten minutes, the videos could be used as a “daily devotional,” but the purpose is to model how John Piper reads the Bible. After hearing a few of these videos, the method can become your own as you read the text and mark your Bible in similar ways. Although there are a few Old Testament examples, most of the videos are based on New Testament texts.

Here is a screenshot of the video and the outline in my Logos setup:

Piper Capture

For $1.99, you can add Finish the Mission: Bringing the Gospel to the Unreached and Unengaged (Crossway, 2012), a collection of seven essays by  David Platt, Louie Giglio, Michael Ramsden, Ed Stetzer, Michael Oh, David Mathis, and John Piper. “Finish the Mission aims to breathe fresh missionary fire into a new generation, as together we seek to reach the unreached and engage the unengaged.”

Noet is a division of Faithlife focusing on classics and they still have Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides and his The Eight Chapters of Maimonides on Ethics  for only 99 cents. This free book has not changed lately, hopefully someone at Faithlife will notice and change the free book soon.

Like every other month, the Logos Free (and almost free) Book of the Month is accompanied by a give-away, in this case the Crossway John Piper Collection (39 vols.), a $359.99 value. There are many ways to enter, so if you ever had the desire to own everything John Piper published through Crossway, now is your chance!

Fitzmyer the-impact-of-the-dead-sea-scrollsVerbum is offering The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Joseph A. Fitzmyer and a collection of essays by Fitzmyer, Interpretation of Scripture for only 99 cents. Fitzmyer is a well-known New Testament scholar and has written extensively on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Both are excellent additions to your Logos Library.

Both Verbum and Noet is part of the Faithlife family of companies. Verbum focuses on Catholic resources and Noet on classics. Both use the same Faithlife account as Logos, so these books are available to anyone with a Faithlife / Logos username and password.

Biblical Studies Carnival – February 2016

Winter-CarnivalJacob Prahlow posted the Biblical Studies Carnival for February 2016 at Perusing Veritas. Jacob did a great job collecting many of the best and brightest posts made in the month of February. Take a break from obsessing over Super Tuesday and head over to his blog, click and the links and thank Jacob for his hard work.

In other biblio-blogging news, Manuel HG at Masora digital offers a Spanish Biblioblog Carnival. I am sure there have been other Spanish carnivals, but this is the first in a while and I hope Manuel makes this a continuing tradition! If you are not a regular reader of Manuel’s English blog, Biblical Studies Online, you should add it to your reading lists.

Jim West’s Alt-Carnival is dedicated to the worst of Biblio-Blogging, the “the most egregiously inaccurate, the most dilettantish.” It is all in good fun, so check out Jim’s list and pray you are not included. I made the cut as “Phil “The Soul Crusher” Long.” I can live with that.

I met Brian Small at the SBL Midwest meeting. It is always nice to meeting people “in real life” after reading their blogs for years. Brian always offers a small collection of Hebrews Highlights the month, including book reviews and all things Hebrews.

If you use FlipBoard to read blogs, consider following my Biblical Studies magazine. The Web-based version is OK, but Flipboard is an essential app for your iOS device. I use it on my iPad for news and other special interests.

The next few carnivals will be hosted by:

I have included a link to the site hosting as well as a twitter account so you can nominate posts during the month by sending them directly to the host. If you do not have a twitter account, contact the host via their blog.

As always I am looking for volunteers for the rest of the year (after July). Carnivals are a great way to attract attention to your site if you are new blogger, but more importantly it gives you a chance to highlight the best and the brightest in the world of BibliBlogs. Please email me  (plong42 at gmail.com) or direct message on Twitter (@plong42). You can also leave a comment here with your contact info and I will get back to you.