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

[Giuseppe]

It seems to me impossible not to conclude, both from the assertions of radical Jewish docetism and from the attack made by Ignatius against the docetists that they judaized, the existence of a Jewish not-Christian group, contemporary of the apostles and still powerful at the beginning of the 2nd century, which declared that they did not know nothing about Jesus. Once again, they were not Docetists, inebriated by the idea of the divine Christ, but anti-Christian people resolutely hostile to the idea of the divinity of Jesus and who also contested the existence of the earthly Jesus. The Docetists judaized in renouncing to believe in the Jesus of flesh; they christianized in affirming the spiritual Christ with even more strength.

[Giuseppe]

The point of Ignatius is that if you judaize insofar you deny the historicity of Jesus just as these Jews there out, then you fall prey of «the snares of the prince of this world», who in turn didn't know that Jesus was born and was killed under Pilate.

But if any one preach the Jewish law unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. Flee therefore the wicked devices and snares of the prince of this world, lest at any time being conquered by his artifices,

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm

Hence Ignatius would like more the anti-Christian Jewish Mythicists, than the Christian Judaizing docetists.

[Giuseppe]

And of course the mere existence of a Jewish group, maybe even a gentile school in Antiochia, of deniers of Jesus's existence, explains the writing of the Earliest Gospel, the final reason of why Jesus was euhemerized: it is more easy to persuade the hoi polloi that Jesus existed by inventing entire testimonia known as Gospels, than by appealing to the subtilities of radical docetism. The two strategies were mutually exclusive, at least before that also the Docetists started to write their own Gospels (GPeter, Mcn, Acts of John, Mark as read by Basilides, Carpocrates, etc) following the general historicist trend.

Note the curious coincidence: the Docetists removed Pilate from their own Gospels because they didn't want, as much as possible, external witnesses of the historicity of Jesus. They left only the "Jews" on the stage as killers since the entire reason d'etre of the Radical Docetists, as we have seen, was the aeternal struggle against the mythicist Jews of the time. It is not a coincidence that, in any Docetist Gospel (=edited or invented by them), the fate of the Jews alone was not to see that Jesus was not really "in the flesh". As part of a cruel irony and nemesis for the historical reality that Jesus was totally unknown by the Jews and signaled as such by some of them. I wonder if even the Messianic Secret in Mark sounds a bit docetic in this sense. But even so, the final of Mark leaves few doubts about the fact that the role of Pilate was to confirm that Jesus was the Jewish Christ and was crucified officially as such. If Jesus cried on the cross, then the his sufferings were real. Just as real was the titulus crucis. Only ask Pilate.

[Giuseppe]

In Mark, Pilate confirms even that Jesus died really. Isn't this 100% anti-docetism?

[Giuseppe]

Resume:

30 CE (?) - 50 CE: Jesus was believed crucified by demons on earth in recent times. "Recent" here is relative insofar we don't know when really the first hallucinations happened. So Paul, too.

50 CE - 110 CE: Since it was only a pure myth, some Jews in Judea and some Gentiles in Antioch denied logically that Jesus was known as existed on earth. The Radical Docetists (in Judea and in Antiochia) replied that Jesus was crucified only in the form of a man. That he only appeared to exist and to suffer, etc. That is why he was unknown.

110-120 CE: "Mark" (author) euhemerized Jesus by placing him in a definite place of history, with Pilate as impartial external witness. In this way the real sufferings of the Christians (=evidence in Pliny the Younger and Hebrews and Revelation) were now comforted by the real sufferings of a "historical" Jesus "in the flesh".

120 CE-135 CE: the Radical Docetists (in Judea and Antiochia) denied still that the Jesus suffered really "in the flesh" and that he appeared under Pilate. Reaction by Ignatius.

135 CE...: the Docetists (outside Judea) adopted and edited previous Gospels. They became virtually Moderate Docetists: Jesus was not "in the flesh" but he was known to be lived in a definite point of History: under Pilate. Even so, Pilate was removed from their Gospels more often than not.

[Giuseppe]

I should correct the shot.

The contradiction is that the radical docetism precedes the our Gospels. But the radical docetism was a reaction against the early skeptics who denied the Christian idea that Jesus was localized precisely in space-time, by replying that the Jesus known by them was an unknown x.

But the Christian idea that Jesus was localized precisely in space-time was born with the Earliest Gospel. But didn't the radical docetism precede the first gospel?

The circular argument may be avoided by simply pointing out it again: that the radical docetism precedes the our Gospels. Gospels who are clearly anti-docetical in nature (the evidence of anti-docetism in the Synoptics and in the fourth Gospel is that Jesus talks when he is on the cross. In the Gospel of Peter, the example of docetical gospel, Jesus is said explicitly be silent on the cross.

The circular argument may be avoided by assuming that the radical docetism was a reaction against the skepticism that was caused only by (and after) the first gospel. Before the first gospel, being Jesus not placed on the earth, there was no reason to deny the existence of an archangel crucified in outer space.

[Giuseppe]

There is then the problem of Basilides.

Assumes that you are a fanatical Basilidean. You should believe then that the Cyrenaic was crucified in the place of Jesus.

You should believe then that the sons of the Cyrenaic, Alexander and Rufus were historical ocular witnesses of the not-crucifixion of Jesus.

In a basilidean universe, Alexander and Rufus can confirm personally that Jesus was not crucified under Pilate. That Jesus was a metamorph, hence a docetical Jesus.


Hence, the first testimonium (=gospel), if Basilides wrote the earliest version of Mark, was meant to prove that Jesus existed under Pilate in a docetical form. The first gospel would be a version of Moderate Docetism. But the moderate docetism is hellenistic. The Radical Docetism is Jewish, just as Jews were the early skeptics, who believed only in an unknown x.

[Giuseppe]

The point is that Alexander and Rufus are mentioned in the Acts of Peter and Andrew, in company of Peter and Glaukias. Now, Glaukias was claimed by Basilides as a reporter of what happened about the replacement of Jesus with Simon on the cross. Hence, Glaukias probably, per Basilides, knew these things from Alexander and Rufus, the sons of the crucified (per Basilides).

Hence Matthew and Luke omitted Alexander and Rufus because they knew the truth: that Alexander and Rufus were too much embarrassing witnesses (from a catholic POV) of the not-crucifixion of Jesus, i.e. of the crucifixion of the Cyrenaic in the place of Jesus.

The fourth gospel, being marcionite (and Marcion wanted the death of Jesus, not of a his clone), omitted the entire episode dear to Basilides.

But then proto-Mark was really written by Basilides, since our Mark is probably a mere Judaizer

Only an author who found an interest behind Alexander and Rufus (an interest not shared surprisingly by Matthew and Luke, despite of the famous desire of testimonia among the catholics, see Papias) could have written proto-Mark.

I can only think that Basilides was that author.

If you want to think otherwise, then you should say me why Alexander and Rufus are in Mark but not in Matthew and Luke.


Incredibly, the Internet rumor read by me time ago, about Robert Price saying that Basilides or Basilidians was the author of proto-Mark, confirms again and again that prof Price is a great scholar.

[Giuseppe]

This explains why "Cyrene": Basilides was in Egypt. The first gospel was egyptian.

[Giuseppe]

1 When Andrew left the city of the man-eaters, a cloud of light took him up and carried him to the mountain where Peter and Matthias and Alexander and Rufus were sitting.

http://gnosis.org/library/actpna.htm

So the two sons of the Cyrenaic knew personally Peter, just as Glaukias knew Peter. And Basilides knew Glaukias.