Full Text for The Crucifixion and Docetic Christology (Text)

The Crucifixion and Docetic Christ ology Edwin M. Yamauchi I. CRUCIFIXION We often forget how incongruous a symbol for a religious movement the cross is. It was, after all, the means of capital punishment in the ancient world - the equivalent of the electric &air, the gas chamber, or the gallows. (Cf. the "gibbet" of the NEB at I Pet. 2:24.) In spite of the Jewish curse on anyone who was hung upon a "tree" (Deut. 21:22-23), the apostles boldly preached the resurrection of a Messiah who had been killed on a cross (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3: 13; 1 Pet. 2:24).1 Knowing well that both Greeks and Romans regarded the cross as the humiliating punishment reserved for slaves and rebels, Paul preached Christ crucified and even declared that He who was equal to God had humbled Himself to experience such a shameful death (Phil. 2:6-1 I).? A. Archaeological Evidence The harsh reality of crucifixion's brutality has been brought home to us by the discovery in 1968 of ossuaries at Giv'at ha- Mivtar just north of Jerusalem. Among the bones of thirty-five individuals, there is evidence that nine died from violent causes, including a child who was shot with an arrow, a young man who was burned upon a rack, and an old woman whose skull was bashed in.3 Of the greatest interest is one ossuary which provides us for the first time with physical evidence of crucifixion. It is inscribed with the name "Yehohanan" followed by the patronymic "son of HGQWL."4 By reinterpreting the gimel as an 'ayin, Yadin speculates that the latter enigmatic word means "H'QWL" or "one hanged with his knees apart," that is, one who was hanged upside down.5 Yehohanan was a young man between the ages of twenty-four and twenty-eight, who was about five feet and five inches tall. He was crucified at some time early in the first century A.D. After his flesh had rotted away, relatives gathered his bones and those of a young child and redeposited them in a limestone box known as an ossuary." Yehohanan's calcanei (heel bones) were still transfixed by a four and a half inch iron nail, which had been bent as it was Pounded into a cross of olive wood.' The right tibia (shin bone) had been fractured into slivers by a blow, the "coup de grace" which was administered to hasten death (cf. John 19:32). The 2 CONCORDlA THEOLOGICAI, QUARTERLY crease in the right radial bone indicates that the victim had been pinioned in the forearms rather than in the hands as in the tradi- tional depictions of Christ's c r~c i f ix ion .~ TheGreek word c-heiras in Luke 2439-40 and John 20:20, 25, 27, usually translated "hands," can and should be translated "arms" in these passage^.^ The fact that both heel bones were transfixed by a single nail has complicated reconstructions of the posture of the victim. Haas suggests that the man was provided with a sedilcto sit upon, and that his legs were in a bent position when the heels were nailed to the cross.10 On the other hand, Moller-Christensen has speculated that a rectangular frame was made for the man's feet so that they were not bent sideways.1' B. Jewish Texts Because of the Mosaic curse (Deut. 21:22-23) a crucified Mes- siah was a stumbling-block to the Jews ( I C'or. 1 :23). Wecan sense the acute difficulties of the Jews from the responses of-l'rypho to Justin Martyr (early second century): l'rypho said, "These and such like scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law ofGod fell on him, for he was crucified.'? In addition to references in the rabbinic texts," we have two texts from Qumran which seem to refer to crucifixion. J. M. Allegro first called attention to the Nahuni Cornmenrur.~' which seems to allude to Alexander Jannaeus, who crucified eight hundred of his enemies.14 More recently Y. Yadin has brought to light the 7'ernplcj S(,roll, which reads as follows (col. 64, lines 6 Sf.): "If a man has informed against his people and has delivered his people up to a foreign nation and has done evil to his people, you shall hang him on the tree and he shall die."" In spite of thc arguments of Haurngarten to the contrary, the verb rlh, "hang," in these texts would seem to refer to cr~cil ' ixion.1~ Fitzmyer points out that his demonstrates that even prior to Christianity, the Jews themselves had applied Deuteronomy 21:22-23 to crucifixion." The Jewish historian Josephus recounted numerous incidents of crucifixion, perhaps none so poignant as an incident which took place during the siege of Machaerus ( Wur V l l . 202-203). The Roman commander captured a brave youth named Eleazar. . . . he ordered a cross to be erected, as though intending to have Eleazar instantly suspended; at which sight those in the fortress were seized with deeper dismay and with piercing 'I 4 CONCORDlA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY As crucifixions were intended as deterrents the Romans set up crosses in the most public places, as Quintilian noted: "Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where the most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as t o their exemplary effect."?2 D. Christian Texts In addition t o the charges of atheism, immori~lity, and can- nibalism which the pagans lodged against Christians. the idea of worshiping a crucified Savior brought forth jibes such a s the one expressed in Minucius Felix's 0claviu.s ( 9 3 ) : And anyone who says that the objects oftheir worshipare a man who suffered the death penalty f'or his crime and the deadly wood of the cross, assigns them altars appropriate for incorrigibly wicked men, so that they actually worship what they deserve.]' Arnobius reports that the pagans said: The gods are not hostile t o you because you worship the Omnipotent God but because you maintain that a man, born a human being, and one who sufl'ered thc penalty of crucifixion, which even t o the lowest of men is a disgraceful punishment, was God . . . . 24 Arnobius was hard put to answer that charge. arguing that the manner of death does not negate a man's words or deeds, citing the deaths of Pythagoras and of Socrates. Though Christians were not always able to express in words the reasons for their faith, they werc soon called upon to be tr~ar/.,*rs. "witnesses" by death, at times on crosses as in the persecutions ol' Nero in A.D. 64 (Tacitus, Annuls XV. 44.6). Eusebius ( H . E . 11. 25.5) reports that in Nero's day "Paul was beheaded at Korne itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified." 'l'he apocryphal Acvs of Peter ( 3 7 ) relates that Peter asked, "I request you therefore, executioners, t o crucify me head-downwards in this way and no other."25 A graphic description of the martyrdom of Pionius ol'Stnyrna, who was crucified in the Decian persecution (A.11. 250). has bccn preserved for us in the Aclu Pionii: The condemned men werc led by the police-ol'ficcr . . . to the stake prepared for them in the arena. At his bidding Pionius willingly stripped ofT his clothes. . . . He then lily down and stretched himself along the stakc. and allowed the soldier to drive in the nails. . . . So they raised the stakc into a n upright position, and lowered i t into a hole in theground, adding greatly t o the pain in the sul'l'ercr's wou~ id . . . . F~ie l Crucifixion 5 was then brought, heaped round the victims' feet, and set . . . As the flames rose around him, with a joyful l'ace he spoke a last "Amen"; and adding the words: "I,ord, receive my soul!" he e ~ p i r e d . 2 ~ The words "docctism" and "docctic" arc derived from the Greek h k o i t i "to appear," referring t o bclicls in a n apparent rather than ;I rcal incarnation of Christ.?' Hippolytus (VIII.3.25) referred t o a spccil'ic group called the I l o c ~ ~ t a c , but the terms are applied more b~.oadly.-'~ I>occtism was not a scp;lratc hcresy but was. a s '.I. N. 1). Kelly points out: "an attitude which infected ;i number ol'hcrcsics, pnrticula~.ly Marcionism and Gnosticism."?Y As Ircnacus (A(/\J. I1rrr.r. I I I. 1 1.3) recogni~cd. t here was a great variety ol' vicws among docctists. 'l'hc various positions ranged from purc docctism to semi- o r quasi-docetic conceptions ol' Christ. Some I'ollowing I'lato dcnicd the reality ol' all sensible phenomena. 0thcl.s dcnicd that Jcsus had a rcal body, o r thiit He actually sul'l'crcd o n the cross. Some admitted that Christ had a body but maintained that this was quite difl'ercnt l'rom the rest of humanity. '" Ilavies identifies lour dil'l'ercnt types ol' docctisnis a s to their points of dcp:irturc: ( I ) thosc t h ~ t derived from ideas ol' the C'oclhcacl. such as the impassibility and the immutability of God; (2) thosc that stressed c~osr?iolog~*, holding that matter belonged to the rcalm ol' the 1)cmiurgc and was not capable of salvation: (3) thosc that centered on rrrr~/rrol~olog.r, maintaining that flesh was evil and that the soul was the rcal man; (4) thosc that denied the incarnation bcc;cusc ol' their vicws ol' C'hri.slo1og.1~. rejecting t he crucil'ixion ol' t tic Messiah as this would makc the envoy ol' (iod inl'crior to the angels." In actuality many ol' these themes were combined by any given group ol'docctists. 111. DO<'KTISM A N D THE NEW TESTAMENT As in the Ii~rgcr issue ol' Gnosticism and the New l i s t amcn t , some scholar>, particularly Hultnianniicns, bclicvc that they can dctcct both thc inllucncc ol 'and the polcmic iigiiinst docctism in the New 'l'cstanient. Many scholars bclicvc that I'aul's opponents at C'orinth cspouscd ;I docctic i l ' not il Gnostic view ol' the rcsurrcction.'-' Not a l'cw bclicvc that the "Carmen C'liristi" of' Philippian!, 25-1 1 h id its origins in :I group with docctic leanings." In opposition t o this view. which has been advocated by E. Lohmeyer and E. Kasemann. J.A.T. Robinson writes: Ilndcr t lic "l'orm of a slave". t he r ?~or l~ /~c~c lou lou (by which is intended nothing in the Icirst docctic, but the most realistic 6 CONCORDlA THEOLOGICAL. QUAR'PER1.Y description of the condition of fallen humnaity), Christ led a life of complete alignment with the will of God . . . . 34 Robert Gundry believes that the hymn of I Timothy 3:16 is directed against "gnostic docetism."35 A few scholars have been able to detect docetic or antidocetic hirains in the first two Gospels.'", H. I'albert has argued vigorously that Luke's realism both in his Gospel and in the Acts betrays an anti-docetic concern: When the Third evangelist says that Jesus was born Son of God, anointed by the Spirit, and that he journeyed to Jerusalem where he died and was raised before ascending bodily into heaven, he is saying "No" to a docetism which claimed that the spiritual redeemer descended upon the man Jesus at the baptism and left him before his passion. At least a major facet of Lucan Christology is a way of saying to docetism that the church's Saviour was really human from first to last.j7 When after the resurrection Jesus is depicted as eatinggrilled fish in the presence of His disciples (Luke 24:39-43), according to Benoit, "By this Luke does not mean that glorified bodies need food; only that Jesus accommodates Himself to their under- standing and gives His disciples a proof that He can eat and therefore is not a mere phantom but a man."3"eremias notes that "A variant on Luke 24.42f. has the disciples giving the Risen Lord a piece of honeycomb as well as the fish, the remainder of which the Risen Lord then hands back . . . . "39 Many have argued that the Gospel of John is docetic, none so baldly as E. Kasemann, who accuses the evangelist of "naive docetism."40 Bultmann and his disciples have assumed that the Fourth Gospel was an adaptation of previously Gnostic material.41 In spite of what he calls its "docetic" look, J . A. T. Robinson notes that the Evangelist is not unconcerned with historicity.42 Cullmann indeed argues that John's Gospel is firmly anchored in history: "Everything that is said in the Johannine prologue about the beginning of all things is seen from the perspective of the decisive statement, 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1.14)."43 Pollard concludes: "For all his emphasis on the divinity of Christ, Christ for him is a man (i. 30; iv.29; viii.40; ix. l I, 16; x.33); . . . . "44 Of course, the clearest examples of antidocetic passages are to be found in the Johannine Epistles, where we read the following (I John 4:2; 2 John 7, NIV): This is how you cay recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the Crucifixion 7 flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. Many deceivers, who d o not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, have gone into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the anti-christ. The positive emphasis of I John 1: 1 strikes the keynote of John's concern: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." But how are these verses to be interpreted? Are these t o be taken as statements against pure o r quasi-docetism? Are they evidence of a developed Gnosticism? 1. H. Marshall in his recent commentary presents several alternative interpretations: According t o U. B. Muller, Die Geschichte der Chris- tologie in der johanneischen Gerneinde, Stuttgart, 1975,53- 68, John's opponents were Docetists who did not separate Jesus from the Christ (as in Cerinthianism), but rather argued that, although Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God, he did not suffer and die t o save men; they regarded Jesus as a glorious figure but not as a savior. Jesus' sufferings were thus merely "apparent" and not reaL45 Another scholar, K. Weiss, has argued that the error was not so much docetism as "a total denial of the character of Jesus as Christ and Son of God . . . . For them Jesus was simply a man."4h Marshall himself favors the widely held view that the error was similar t o the docetism of the Gnostic Cerinthus, which held that the Christ indwelt the human Jesus only during the period from the baptism to the crucifixion.47 At the same time Marshall does not subscribe to the view of the Bultmannians that the Johannine Epistles were directed against a full-fledged Gnosticism: It remains, however, very doubtful whether Gnosticism in the full sense of the term existed in the first century; and it is important t o notice that what John condemns is a Docetic or similar Christology and a lowering of Christian ethical standards rather than the full-blown Gnostic system of teaching.48 IV. THE APOCRYPHAL NEW TESTAMENT Both the "Infancy* and the "Gnostic" categories of the Apo- cryphal New Testament books are pervaded with docetic or quasidocetic features.49 A Latin Infancy Gospel in the Arundel Manuscript has the following report of the midwife who assisted at the Nativity: "And 1 took courage and bent down and touched 6 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY him, . . . . . . . he had no weight like other children who are born. . . . And while I wondered greatly because he did not cry as new-born babes are accustomed to cry . . . ."50 The Ascension of Isaiah 11:7-14 has the following account of the babe's birth: And after two months, when Joseph was in his house, and his wife Mary, but both alone, it came to pass, while they were alone, that Mary straightway beheld with her eyes and saw a small child, and she was amazed. And when her amazement wore off, her womb was found as it was before she was with child. . . . Some said, "The virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months," and many said, "She has not given birth: the midwife has not gone up (to her) and we have heard no cries of pain."51 The Infancy Gospel of Thomas relates how Jesus as a young child was not like other children in his miraculous powers. As he grew to manhood, the Acts of Peter (20) tells us: "He ate and drank for our sakes, though himself without hunger o r thirst . . . . "52 The most striking expressions of docetism are found in relation to the passion of the Lord. Eusebius (H.E. VI. 12:2-6) tells us how Serapion, the bishop of Antioch (second half of the second century), a t first permitted the reading of the Gospel of Peter at the church at Rhossus but then forbade its reading when he learned of its docetic character. According to the Gospel of Peter when Christ was crucified "he held his peace, as if he felt no pain," and when He expired, He cried out, "My power, 0 power, thou hast forsaken me."53 The Acts of John, which also comes from the late second century, is quite explicit in its advanced d0cetism.5~ John exclaims of Jesus that "he sometimes appeared to me as a small man with no good looks, and then again as looking up to heaven."55 He also relates, "sometimes his breast felt to me smooth and soft, but sometimes hard like and also reports, "sometimes when I meant to touch him I encountered a material, solid body; but at other times again when I felt him, his substance was immaterial and incorporeal, and as if it did not exist at At the time of the crucifixion John flees to a cave, where the true Lord explains to him the mystery of the cross: "John, for the people below in Jerusalem I am being crucified and pierced with lances and reeds and given vinegar and gall to drink. But to you I am speaking, and listen to what I speak."5* Crucifixion 9 "But this is not that wooden Cross which you shall see when you go down from here; nor am I the (man) who is on the Cross, (1) whom now you do not see but only hear (my) voice. 1 was taken to be what I am not, I who am not what for many others 1 was; but what they will say of me is mean and unworthy of me."5Y V. THE NAG HAMMADI TEXTS As in the patristic accounts so in the newly published Nag Hammadi texts60 we encounter a variety of docetic views ranging from the purely docetic, to possibly docetic, and even to anti- docetic expression^.^^ A. Clearly Docetic Texts There are two striking illustrations of the "substitutionary" docetism of Basilides (Adv . Haer. 1.24.4): the Second Treatise (Logos) of the Great Seth (CG V11,2), and the Apocalypse of Peter (CG V11,3), in which we have the Savior laughing at the foolishness of the mob which mistakenly believe that they have crucified Him.62 In the former account (55.9-1 9, 3 1-56.19), we have the following passage: "And I was in the mouths of lions. . . . But I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me. And I did not die in reality but in appearance. . . . For my death which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. . . . Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not 1. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And 1 was laughing at their ignorance."h) The account of the Apocalypse of Peter (8 I . 1 5-24; 82.27-83.8) is strikingly similar: The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness." "But he who stands near hirh is the living Savior, the first in him, whom they seized and released, who stands joyfully looking at those who did him violence, while they are divided among themselves. Therefore he laughs at their lack of Perception, knowing that they are born blind. So then the one susceptible t o suffering shall come, since the body is the substitute. But what they released was my incorporeal body."64 In the First Apocalypse of James (CG V.3; 3 1.14- 19) we have the following statement: "The Lord said, 'James, d o not be con- cerned for me or for this people. I am he who was within me. Never have I suffered in any way.' "" In the Second Apocaa1vpse of James (CG V.4) we have some possible docetic passages (e.g. 57.10-20),M but we d o not have a wholesale denial of the identity of the crucified one with the Saviorah7 In the Letter of Peter to Philip we have the following passage ( 139.9-22): And Peter opened his mouth, he said to his disciples, "[Did] our Lord Jesus, when he was in the body, show us everything?" . . . . He spoke thus: "Our illuminator, Jesus, [came] down and was crucified. And he bore a crown of thorns. And he put on a purple garment. And he was [crucified] on a tree and he was buried in a tomb. And he rose from the dead. My brothers, Jesus is a stranger to this suffering."bU We have a similar denial of the suffering of the Savior in Zostrianos (CG VII1, I; 48.27-29): "He was there again, he who suffers although he is unable to suffer, for he was a power of a power.'s9 In the very important tractate, the Trimorphic Prorennoia(CG XII1,l) we encounter many parallels to the Prologue of the Gospel of John - so much so that James Robinson and members of the Berliner ~rbeirskreis f;r koprisch-gnosrische Schrifren, an East Berlin group which includes the West Berlin scholar Carsten Colpe, have hailed it as the Vorlage of the Johannine P r o l ~ g u e . ~ ~ ) Pitted against this view are the arguments of Y. Janssens7' and R. McL. Wilson72 whose analyses lead them to conclude that the Trimorphic Prorennoia is secondary. Supporting their position is the study of J. Helderman, who demonstrates that the use of the Greek loanword skene as a noun in 47.16, "The third time I revealed myself t o them [in] their tents as the Word,"73 is a transformation of the verb eskenown, "He tabernacled," in John 1: 14 in a clearly docetic direction.74 The Redeemer reveals Himself t o the elect in the world of light, rather than tenting with men in the world of matter. B. Possibly Docetic Texts There are a number of Nag Hammadi tractates whose alleged docetism is ambiguous o r contested. Among these are the Crucifixion I I following: The Gospel of Philip (CG 11,3) has the following passage (57. 28-58.8). which has been considerably restored: Jesus took them all by stealth, for he did not reveal himself in the manner [in which] he was, but it was in the manner in which [they would] be able to see him that he revealed himself. . . . He [revealed himselfJ to the small as small. He [revealed himself to the] angels as an angel and to men as a man. Some indeed saw him, thinking that they were seeing themselves, but when he appeared to his disciples in glory on the mount he was not ~ma11.~5 In another passage, which has unfortunately been even more badly damaged, there is a reference to the Redeemer's flesh (68.34-37). As restored it reads: 'THe did indeed possess] flesh, but his [flesh] is true flesh. [Our flesh] is not true, but [we possess] only an image of the true."76 In the Gospel of Thomas (CG 11,2) we have in Logion 28 the following statement: "I took My place in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh." Gartner comments that it is not necessary to deduce from these words an incarnation in the New Testament sense: "This is supported by the term ophthen, as well as the Gnostics' use of the word ~ a r x . " ~ ~ Whether or not the Christology of the Gospelof Truth(CG 1,2) is docetic or not is contested. Grobel comments: Though the category of history is rarely touched, the history of Jesus' passion is both implicitly and explicitly present. Even whether Jesus on earth is Docetically con- ceived is at least uncertain; the one expression which might decide the matter (31:6) is ambiguous.78 G. W. MacRae translates the key Coptic word cmat as represent- ing the Greek homoioma, "appearance," in a docetic sense.7Y On the other hand, a Japanese scholar, Shibata, hasargued that there is "no factor which hints the docetic nature of sarx" in the Gospel of Truth.no Another Japanese scholar has argued that the Christology of the tractate is hardly Gnostic and is sec~ndary .~ ' In the Gospel of Truth (20.23-27) we have the following reference to the cross: "For this reason Jesus appeared; he put on that book; he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross."8* But according to Menard the Christ on the cross is merely the symbol of men crucified on the cross of matter.83 C. Non-Docetic Texts The tractate first called Rheginos, and now the Treatise on the Resurrection (CG 1,3), was regarded by its original editors as a Valentinian work with a docetic Christology.~* On the other hand, Malcolm Peel has argued that the references to "flesh" (44.14-15) and to "humanity" (44.24-26) indicate that the Savior used a body of flesh if only for a time: "It is difficult in the light of such passages to see how the editors could conclude that our Letter presents a thorough-going docetic Christology."n-5 One of the most remarkable documents in the collection is the tractate Melchizedek (CG IX,l), which launches a vigorous polemic against docetism (5.1-12): [They] will come in his name, and they will say of him that he is unbegotten though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat even though he eats, (that) he does not drink even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly though he has come in flesh, (that) he did not come to suffering though he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead though he arose from [the] dead.86 The very diversity of Christological views in the tractates provides evidence for the nature of the Nag Hammadi collection. Jean Doresse, the earliest investigator, had suggested that this was the library of a Sethian Gnostic sect which lived in thearea.87 But not all the texts are Sethian. Moreover, the researches of John Barns demonstrate that the books were written in a Pachomian monastery.8"ut by whom? James Robinson has suggested that the texts were copied by Christian Gnostic monks before the time when they were considered as heretics and were expelled.nY On the other hand, Barns himself felt that the orthodox monks had copied such works as references for their apologetic refutations.YO This view has also been developed by T. ~ g v e - Sb'derbergh: "The library can have been brought together for haeresiological purposes, let us say by persons who like Epi- phanius wanted to collect a Panarion against the G n o s t i ~ s . " ~ ~ Lending support to the view that the tractates were copied for reference purposes is the scribal note attached to the Hermetic Prayer of Thanksgiving (CG V I,7): I have copied this one discourse of his. Indeed, very many have come to me. I have not copied them because I thought that they had come to you (pl.). Also, I hestitate to copy these for you because perhaps they have (already) come to you, and the matter may burden you, since the discourses of that one, which have come to me, are numer0us.~2 In conclusion, the presence of docetic, quasi-docetic, and anti- docetic tractates supports the view of the Nag Hammadi tractates 7 Crucifixion 13 85 a reference collection rather than the view that they were the library of any single Gnostic sect. V1. LATER DEVELOPMENTS The struggle between the proponents of a docetic Christology such as Simon Magus, Saturninus, Basilides, Cerinthus, Mar- c h , Valentinus, Bardesanes, etc.93 and the church fathers, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and especi?l- ly TertullianY4 has been well documented and fully discussed. One movement upon which new light has been shed deserves comment. Mani (216-276), a Persian born in Mesopotamia, founded the syncretistic and dualistic religion of Manichaeism,ys which numbered among its adherents Augustine before his conversion. The sensational discovery of the Cologne Codex on the life of Mani and its publication in 1970 confirm Arabic reports that Mani emerged from the Jewish-Christian Elchasaites.Yh According to the Manichaeans Jesus was "an apparent corpo- reality and not a real pers0n."9~ Mani, who had been influenced by the teachings of Marcion, taught that Jesus was not born of Mary. Faustus, a Manichaean leader against whom Augustine wrote, held that Jesus' death was only apparent.9x The Manichaean Epistle of the Foundation maintained that the Prince of Darkness, who had hoped to have the Savior crucified, was himself nailed to the cr0ss.9~ Koenen comments: The suffering of the divine Light is the suffering in a body. Jesus, however, was supposed not to have such a body. Therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus lost its theological relevance. Consequently, it played almost no role in Manichaean rites. However, the Manichaeans celebrated the passion of Mani at the Bema Feast.100 That is, though Mani was not crucified, his sufferings were under- stood as equivalent to crucifixion. Augustine reports that the Manichaeans taught peculiar doctrines about Jesus Patihilis, "The Suffering Jesus," and Crux Lucis, "The Cross of Light." That these concepts were not invented by Augustine has now been confirmed by the Cologne Codex. The Manichaeans taught that particles of the divine Light, which had become captive in plants, were to be liberated by the elect through burping and digestion! Christ dies daily, suffers daily and is born daily in pumpkins, leeks, purslane, and other plants. Cutting, cooking, chewing, and digestion cause pain to the divine substance, to the limbs of God. Such suffering was sym- bolized by the cross . . . . 1 0 1 14 CONCORnlA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY In the seventh century Muhammad may have revived a substitutionary docetism, similar to that held by Basilides, for we read in the Qur'an 4: 157: "And because of their saying: 'We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger' - They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them [Arabic: shubbiha lahum]; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain."lOz Most Christian interpreters (e.g. F. F. Brucel03) and Muslim commentators inter- pret the verse as a docetic understanding of the crucifixion. On the other hand, G. Parrinder argues that the key Arabic words "it appeared so unto them" may originally have meant that the by- standers misunderstood the crucifixion.lo4 I Be that as it may, the presence of Christians who held docetic views of Christ among pre-Islamic Arabs is attested.105 The docetic interpretation of Christ's crucifixion is now standard dogma among Muslims. The missionary-minded Ahmadiyya sect, founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (d. 1908), teaches that Jesus survived the crucifixion and wandered off to Srinagar in Kashmir, where he finally died.lO6 VII. CONCLUSIONS By the fourth century, with the exception of the Manichaeans, the advocates of a docetic Christology had been almost complete- ly refuted by the incarnational Christology of lrenaeus and of Tertullian. In the fifth century a minor movement did emerge, the "aphthartodocetists" who held that Christ was so glorified that His body was insensible to suffering.107 For most of the church the four ecumenical councils at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon have clarified and defined the human nature and the divine nature of Jesus Christ.lOn In our day the major attacks upon orthodoxy come from those who would question the Lord's divinity rather than His humanity. Rut the following citation from a modern religious movement demonstrates that the tendency to docetism is always possible: The invisible Christ was incorporeal, whereas Jesus was a corporeal or bodily existence. The dual personality, of the seen and the unseen, the spiritual and material, the Christ and Jesus, continued until the Master's ascension, when the human, the corporeal concept, or Jesus, disappeared, while his invisible self, or Christ, continued to exist in the eternal order of Divine Science. 109 I his survey of docetism has sought to remind believers of the reality of the cross and of Christ's humanity by noting to what lcngths people have gone who have denied both. Crucifixion 15 FOOTNOTES 1. H,M, Shires, Finding the Old Testament in rhe New (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), pp. 08, 58, 101. 2. E,E. Ellis, "Christ Crucified," in Reconr.iliation and Hope, ed. R. Hanks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 69-75. 3. N, Haas. "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar," IEJ, 20 (1970), pp. 44-46, 48. 4, J, Naveh, "The Ossuary inscriptions from (iiv'at ha-Mivtar." 1 0 , 20 (1970), p. 35. 5 , Y. Yadin, "Epigraphy and Crucifixion," IEJ, 23 (1973). pp. 18-22. 6. Cf. E.M. Meyers, Jewish 0.s.suarie.s: Reburialand Rebirrh(Romc: Hiblical Institute, 1971). 7, cf. J.W. Hewitt, "The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion." //7'R, 25 (1932). pp. 29-45. 8. Cf. plate 22, IEJ, 20 (1970). 9. J.H. Charlesworth, "Jesus and Jehohanan: An Archaeological Note o n Crucifixion," Eyository Tinres, 84 (1973), p. 148, n. 16, comments: "'l'he so-called Turin Shroud, which might have once contained a crucified man. apparently reveals nail wounds near the wrists and not in the palms." On the shroud, see further: C.J. McNaspy, "The Shroudof 'l.urin," C'BQ. 7 (1945), pp. 144-64; E.A. Wuenschel, "The Shroud ol"1'urin andthe Huri;~l of Christ," C'BQ, (1945). pp. 405-37; P.N. Vignon. Shroud o/' C'lrrisr (Secaucus: University Hooks, 1970); 7'. Humber. The Sacrc~d Shroud (N.Y.: Pocket Books, 1977). The linen shroud which has been venerated since the fourteenth century was subjected to scientific tests in 1978 to determine its date. 'The results have not yet been published. See V. Hortin. "Science and the Shroud of Turin," BA. 43 (1980). 109-17. 10. Haas, p 57, plate 24; cf. J.F. Strange, "Crucifixion. Method of'," I I IH .Supplement, p. 200. I I . V. Moller-Christensen, "Skeletal Remains from (iiv'at ha-Mivtar." [E l , 26 (1976), pp. 35-38. 12. Justin Martyr and Arhmagora.s. tr. A. Roberts and .I. 1)onaldson (Edinburgh: 'T. and 7'. Clark, I892), # 132, p. 126: cl'. # 89, p. 212. 13. Martin Hengel. Crurs~/i'.xion (IAondon: SC'M, 197ul. pp. 84-85, 14. Cf. E.M. Yamauchi. "'l'he Teacher of Righteousness from Qumran atid Jesus of Nazareth." Chrisrianity 7bdur. 10 (May 13. 1966). pp. 8 16-1 8. 15. Cited in J.A Fit~myer, "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine. Qumran Literature, and the New Testament," C'RQ, 40 (1978), p. 503. 16. J.M. Haumgi~rten, "1)oes 7'I.N in the'l-emple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion?" JBL, 91 (1972). pp. 472-81. Cf. J.M. Ford," 'Crucify him.crucily hirn.'i~nd the Temple Scroll," Bible and Spade. 6 (1977). pp. 49-55. 17. Fitzmyer, p. 507. 18. J. Moltmann, The C7ruci/fed God (I.ondon: SCM. 1974), p. 33. 19. Hengel, p. 89. 20. Cited in ibid., p. 42. As to the"weals" mentioned here, the head ofa Ro~nan scourging whip was found for the first time at Heshban; see A USS. 14 (1976), p. 216. 21. Cited in Hengel, pp. 00-31. 22. Cited in ibid., p. 50, n. 14. 16 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY 23. Tertullian, Apologetical Works; and Minucius Felix, Octaviu.~, tr. R. Arbesmann, E.J. Daly, and E.A. Quain (Washington. D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1950), p. 336. A pagan had incised a cartoon on the Palatine Hill in Rome with the words, "Alexamenos worshipping hisgod" with the picture of a man with the head of an ass hanging on a cross. 24. Arnobius of Sicca. The Case Against the Pagans, tr. G.E. McCracken (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1949). 1.36, p. 84. Cf. Celsus' jibe, "You have had the ~ r e s u m ~ t i o n to . . . assert that a man who lived a most infamous life and died a mist miserable death was a pod" (Contra Celsum VII. 53). 25. E. ~ e n k e c k e and W. Schneemelcher, eds.. New Testament Aprocqpha /I [hereafter NTA /I] (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965). p. 319. 26. C.J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1938). pp. 398-99. 27. Cf. J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought(Philadelphia: Muhlenherg. 1946), 1. p. 55: G.C. Berkouwer, The Person (?/'Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), p. 199: John Knox, The Humanit,rund Di\~inir~c?/'C'hrisr (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967). pp. 16- 17. 28. Fathers of the Third Centurj*, tr. A. Roberts and J . Donaldson (AN F V; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1975 reprint). Ref: V111. 3, p. 119. 29. J.N.D. Kelly, Ear!v Christian doctrine.^ (5th ed.; N.Y.: Harpcrand Row. 1978). p. 141. 30. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Ill. I 1.3; J. Tixeront. Histor,~.c?f'Dogmu.s (3rd ed.: St. Louis: B. Herder, 1930). pp. 179.3 16; S. Laeuchli, The Serpent and the. Dove (Nashville: Abingdon. 1966). pp. 90-91 : A. Orbe. "La Pasion sepun 10s gnosticos," Greg, 56 (1975). p. 9. 3 1 . G. Davies, "The Origins of Docetism," Studio Patris/ic*a VI. ed. F. I.. Cross (Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 1962). pp. 13-35. 32. W. Schmithals. Gnostics in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon. 1971); E.M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) [hereafter PCG], pp. 39-42. 33. Knox, p. 32; PCG, pp. 43-44; H.M. Schenke, "Die neutestamentliche Christologie und der gnostische Erloser," in Gnosis und Neue.s Testanient [hereafter GNU, ed. K.-W. Troger (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. 1973), p. 219. 34. J.A.T. Robinson, The Bodv: A Studvin Pauline Theolo~,~(London: SC'M, 1952), p. 39. 35. R.H. Gundry. "The Form, Meaning and Background ofthe Hymn Quoted in I Timothy 3: 16," in Apostolic History and the Gos/)eI, ed. W. W. l uc,c,ortlin~ to 7'hottru.\ (New York: Harper and Hrothcrs, 196l), p. 142. 78. K. Grobcl, Thr Go.sprl o/' 7iurh (Nirbhvillc: Abingdon, 1960). p.22. 79. NHI, , p. 43. 80. Y. Shibata, "Non-l)ocetic C'haractcr of Eivirngcliurn Vcritirtis." Annuulo/ rhr Jupunr.rr Hihlic~~l In.srirurr, 1 ( 1975), p. 130. X I. S. Arai, l l ir C'hri.srolo~ie dr.v Evungc,lium Vfviruri.~ ( I .cidcn: I:.J. Ijrill, 1964). C'f. S. Arai, "Zur C'hristologic des Apokryphons dcs Joh;lnncs." N7S, 15 (1968/69), pp. 302-18. 82. NI I I , , p. 39. Cf. Grobel, p. 62. 83. J.-E. Mcnard, "llic Erkenntnis im Evangclium der Wahrhcit." in Crucifixion 19 Christenturn und Gnosis, ed. W. Eltester (BZNW 37; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1969), p. 61. For the lack of narrative and historical orienta- tion in Gnostic texts see E.M. Yamauchi, "The Gnostics and History," JETS, 14 (1971), pp. 29-40. $4. M. P l i n i n e el a!., eds., De R~surrccric~rie (Epistula ud Rheginum) ( ~ u r ~ c h : Rascher, 1963). 85. M.L. Peel. The Epistle to Rheginus(Philade1phia: Westminster, 1969), p. -- 113. 86, NHL, p. 400. Cf. Dart, pp. 1 1 1-12. 87, J. Doresse, The Secaret Buoksuf th~~Eg,ypriun C;no.stic.s(New York: Viking, 1960), pp. 250-5 1. 88, J, Barns, "Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Cbvers ol'the Nag Hammadi Codices," in Essa-vs on the Nu,q Hammadi Texts in Honour c?/'Puhor Labib, ed. M. Krause (Leiden: E..I. Hrill, 1975), pp. 9-17. 89. NHL, pp. 16-18. 90. Barns, p. 16. J.-I). Dubois. "1.e~ 'fextes de Nag Hammadi en 1974: un Bilan," ETR, 89 (1974). p. 385. 91. T, Save-Soderbergh, "Holy Scriptures or Apologetic I)ocumentations?" in Les Tex~e.s de Nag I~anir~iu(11. ed. J.-E. Menard ( Leiden: E..I. Brill. 1975). p. 4. 92. NHL, p. 299. 93. See PCG, pp. 58 ff.; K.M. Grant, cd.. (ino.vric*ism: A Sourc,c.hooX; o/' Heretical Writings ,/rorn t h ~ Eur11, Chri.vriutt t '~riod (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961). 94: See PC'G, ch. 3; K.M. Grant, ed.. Set~onbC'~ttrurj* C'hri.~riurii~,~~: A Collection o/' Frugm~nts (London: S. P.C. K. . 1957); .I. Oulton and Cl. Chadwick, eds., Ale.xurtdrion C'hristiunitv (1,CC 11; Philadelphia: West- minster, 1954). p. 88: 'l'rrtullion, tr. A.C. Coxc (ANE' Ill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1976 reprint). p. 524; T.1). Barnes, 'l'rrrulliun (New York: Oxford University. 1971). pp. 122 Uf. 95. Cf. E.M. Yamauchi, "Manichae;~ns," in 7'ha Hundl>ook o/' C'hri.sriurr History, ed. T. 1)owley (Grand Ri~pids: Eerdmans, 1977). pp. 48-49. 96. A. Henrichs and I.. Koenen, "Eine altc gricchische Mani Schrift." Zeitschrift ,/ur Pap.r'rolo,qie und K/)i,qruphik. 5 ( 1970). pp. 97-2 16. 97. G. Widengren, Man; urtrl Murric.hu~isnr ( 1,ondon: Wcidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), p. 124. 98. Orbe, p. 42. 99. Dorksse, p. 22. 100. L. Koenen. "Augustine and Manichacism in Light of the Cologne Mani Codkx," Illinois Clu.vsic~ul Studies, 3 ( 197X), p. 192. lol. [bid,, pp. 176-77. The Meuning (!/' the (i1oriou.v h'orun, tr. M. lJickthall ( New York: New American Library. 1953). p. 93. l03+ F.F. Bruce. The Ik/inc.r (?/. the C i o y ~ I in the N ~ M . 7tsrummr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959). p. 83. IW. G. Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur'un (New York: Oxl'i~rd University. 1977). - PP. I I I rr. '05. J.S. Trimingham, Chrisriunit,~ umong the Aruh.5 in I'rr-lslumic Tir?tc..v (London: Longmans. 1979), pp. 49-55. '06. J.N.D. Anderson, Chri.stianit~*: The Witrte.vsq/'Hisror~~(London: I-yndale. 19691, p. 63. J.C. Ayer, ed., A Sourcee Rook fur Anc*ient Church Hisror.~. (New York: AMS Press. 1970 reprint of 1913 ed.). pp. 553-54. 20 CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY 108. H. Jedin. Ecumenical Councils in rhecarholic Church (New York: Herder and Herder, 1960). 109. Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Heulrh with Key ro the Scriptures (52nd ed.; Boston, 1891). p. 229, cited by C. Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers (New York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 346. Edwin M. Yamauchz is professor ofhistory at Miami University, Oxford Ohio.