The docetism was a reaction to old Jewish DENIERS of the historicity of Jesus

[Giuseppe]

Possibly this dialogue may help to vehicle better the my point:

#####################

The Christians who knew a Gospel Jesus: our Jesus existed in Judea etc...


Some Jews: your Jesus was totally unknown.

The Christians: our Jesus was unknown because he could only be seen or heard but he couldn't be touched, since he was without a body.

#####################

Evidence of this fact is Ignatius, Ephesians 9:

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was He manifested to the world? A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment.

It is strange that Satan is said to have ignored the death of the Lord, and not the identity of the Lord himself, since the precise point of Ascension of Isaiah is that Satan at least knew that he was killing someone, even if he didn't know who precisely.

[Giuseppe]

Other evidence:

“ I have heard certain men say : If I do not find (a certain thing) in the archives, I do not believe in the Gospel. And as I replied to them : It is written (in the Old Testament) they answered : ‘ That is the very question.’ But for me the archives are Jesus Christ, His cross, His death. His resurrection, and the faith which comes from Him.”

(Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians)

The "archives" can't be the Old Testament, since Ignatius refers these researchers of the Historical Jesus to the Old Testament as "evidence" (since they had not verified still the Old Testament but only the "archives" before that time), therefore gaining as response:

That is the very question

The "question" for them was that the only evidence (given by the Christians) of the historicity of Jesus was just the Old Testament.

They denied the historicity of Jesus as built only from OT prophecies.

[Giuseppe]

Other evidence that the docetic nature of Jesus was "predicted" in Isaiah 50:7 as answer against old Jewish deniers:

Because the Sovereign LORD helps me, I will not be disgraced. Therefore have I set my face like flint, and I know I will not be put to shame

In Mark Jesus is silent when he was insulted by thieves and by the sinedrites under the cross. That silence is 100% expected if Jesus didn't suffer since the his his body was made magically "like flint", per Isaiah 50:7 plus Isaiah 53:7:

He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth

"He didn't open the his moth" because he didn't suffer, being made "like a flint".

[Giuseppe]

Other evidence of a docetism who conceded the Jewish denial of the historicity of Jesus:

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, His Father quickening Him, even as after the same manner His Father will so raise up us who believe in Him by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life.


But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist), then why am I in bonds? Why do I long to be exposed to the wild beasts? Do I therefore die in vain? Am I not then guilty of falsehood against [the cross of] the Lord?

(Trallians 9-10)

Note the Ignatius very logical argument:

1) if the Docetists are right that Jesus "only seems to exist" then the Docetists themselves "only seem to exist".

2) but there is not a such thing as Docetists "who only seem to exist".

3) therefore: there is not a such thing as Jesus "who only seem to exist".

CONCLUSION:

Ignatius is a denier of the historical reality of a Jesus "who only seem to exist".

[Giuseppe]

The docetism was the way by early Jewish Christians (Readers of the First Gospel) to harmonize the Jewish «mythicist» (ante litteram) accusation that Jesus was an unknown X with the Gospel idea that Jesus existed in Judea:

How can that Jewish accusation be expressed? In the following manner:

The Jesus of which you talk was not a descendant of David; he was not a son of Mary; he didn't come in the world; he didn't eat, he didn't drink; he was not baptized by John; he wasn't crucified under Pilate and Herod; he was for us completely unknown.

[Giuseppe]

And which was the apology of these early Jewish Docetists (in Judea) against these old anti-Christian Jewish Mythicists (in Judea)?

Yes, you do not have known the Jesus in the flesh, because he did not exist according to the flesh; but the apostles and the mass of the believers heard him, saw him; we saw him on the cross in Pilate's day; we saw him resurrected. He was a divine ghost, an air and spiritual being whom the eyes have seen, of which the ears have perceived the voice, but that could not be grasped by touch.

[Giuseppe]

Note that the docetism couldn't be born from embarrassment about a real crucifixion of Jesus, since the JEWISH Docetists met by Ignatius preached a docetical Jesus from the birth until to Death. Not only during the death.

Note also that that Judeo-Christian docetism was born even before Jesus was euhemerized by the first Gospel, since the our Gospels are strongly anti-docetics (the GPeter was a mere exception) just because the Gospels, in virtue of their existence itself, as invented testimonia confirming the historicity of Jesus, exclude by definition the use of the other anti-mythicist strategy: to say that yes, Jesus was not known in the flesh by the Jews, but he was heard and seen by Christians.

[Giuseppe]

Which are the "Archives" of which the enemies of Ignatius are talking, when they claimed that Jesus was not mentioned in these archives and therefore there was strong reason to doubt about the historical existence of Jesus?

These are the archives of Cesarea. This city was the capital of Judea (caput Palaestinae, Tacitus, Hist. 2:79), the residence of the Roman governor. It is there where they could find genuine testimonia about Jesus, if only Jesus was really existed.

The fool apology of Ignatius was that the archives themselves are work of Satan, that Satan himself didn't know that Jesus lived and was crucified.

That was also the reason of the invented Acts of Pilate.

[GakuseiDon]

Evidence of this fact is Ignatius, Ephesians 9:

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was He manifested to the world? A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment.

It is strange that Satan is said to have ignored the death of the Lord, and not the identity of the Lord himself, since the precise point of Ascension of Isaiah is that Satan at least knew that he was killing someone, even if he didn't know who precisely.

Off the top of my head: perhaps Ignatius never read the Ascension of Isaiah?

[Giuseppe]

Off the top of my head: perhaps Ignatius never read the Ascension of Isaiah?

Are you begging the question? Because otherwise you have to explain why Ignatius never read even 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, where the demons knew at least that they had crucified someone. Or not?