The term ‘docetism’, used to describe those who in various ways were seen as denying or disregarding Jesus’ humanity, regarding it as an apparition, or somehow separate from his divinity, is a disputed one. It could be taken to imply a self-contained movement but most now agree that that is not the case – people described as ‘docetic’ could belong to a variety of early Christian groups, though the term itself is rare until the third century. How to define it has been the subject of extended debate ever since F. C. Baur brought it to the attention of historians of the ancient Church in the earlier part of the nineteenth century.

The set of papers which make up this volume, emerging from a conference held at Leuven in December 2014 and the Oxford Patristics Conference in August 2015, focus in the main on texts, though, inevitably and necessarily, theoretical and wider dogmatic issues are addressed. Allen Brent's opening methodological essay discusses maximalist and minimalist definitions of the term, arguing that our understanding of the whole subject is clouded by a post-Enlightenment distinction between reality and appearance in terms that would not cohere with ancient interpretations of the same. Jörg Frey, in an essay which concerns itself with a broad swathe of texts, problematises the question of definition, arguing against what he calls a ‘predominantly dogmatic’ view to a more nuanced one which distinguishes between the diverse attempts at differentiating between the divine in Christ and his earthly appearance. In this vein Frey examines a number of early Christian texts, within the New Testament and outside, which could be described as entertaining a docetic-like Christology. For the early period under discussion ‘neither the term “docetic”, nor its opposite, “anti-docetic”, is really appropriate’. Francis Watson, in an essay on Pauline reception and the problem of docetism, argues, inter alia, that scholars should avoid assuming a binary division between docetic and non-docetic, and speak instead of what he terms ‘a range of christologies of hiddenness and manifestation in which the human appearance both conceals and signifies the presence of the divine savior’. He sees early versions of such a Christology in Ignatius, his opponents, the Letter to Rheginus and Paul. Paul Foster looks at synoptic accounts of Christophanies and rather than asking whether these should be considered docetic in any way, examines their potential to be viewed as such. There follows a number of essays on John, which ever since Ernst Käsemann's seminal monograph of 1966, translated into English as The testament of Jesus, has been a storm centre of docetic discussion. Jens Schröter looks again at John 6.51c–58, seeing it as an independent chain of tradition from the eucharistic words as recorded in Paul and the Synoptics, but one which cannot be shown to be anti-docetic; and he follows its trajectory from Ignatius to the Gospel of Philip, showing how the eucharist becomes an important medium for reflecting on the relationship between human and divine in Jesus. Reimund Bieringer examines the Passion narrative in John, which has often played a role in docetic readings of the Gospel, or put less controversially, interpretations which see the Gospel as uninterested in Jesus’ humanity. By and large Bieringer disagrees with such a view, arguing for a more balanced interpretation, where the relationship between Jesus’ humanity and divinity is seen as ambivalent rather than paradoxical. Martin Menken, who sadly died before the book was published and to whom it is dedicated, examines the old argument, given prominence by R. E. Brown in particular but by many others, too, that docetists form the opponents of the writer of 1 and 2 John. In broad terms he supports what some might term the traditionalist position. Comparing the figures mentioned in 1 John and those in Ignatius, he argues that the latter solved the problem of the humanity of Jesus by arguing that he only seemed to be human, but the former simply assumed that Christ's humanity was insignificant for salvation. A number of essays on Ignatius’ opponents follow, appropriately, as in the history of scholarship the bishop has been held to give the first clear evidence of the existence of so-called docetists. Alistair Stewart reviews the history of the discussion, noting problems with most attempts to define the docetists’ position in the letters. Arguing that much of the issue centres on Jesus’ body at the crucifixion and the resurrection, understood in terms of a separationist Christology, he draws parallels with Ignatius’ rebuttal of his opponents and remarks found in the Epistula Apostolorum, arguing that both writers are dealing with similar difficulties. He wonders whether what he terms Asian Christologies were developed in reaction to the kinds of positions represented by Ignatius’ opponents, or whether the two are utterly unrelated. Paul Hartog, in a suggestive essay, looks at the way in which Ignatius’ attempts at refuting docetists impact upon his use of Paul, especially Romans i.3–4 (a text, incidentally, thought by some not to be known by Ignatius), as well as his understanding of the prophets, which in Hartog's opinion shows a shift from viewing them as ‘predicting agents leading up to a Christ event … to co-disciples under the gospel, living according to Jesus Christ’; and he argues for a considerable influence of docetic Christologies seen especially in people's responses to them. Dominika Kurek-Chomycz argues that for Ignatius it was not Christ's death but his death through suffering that was so important, an observation which impacts upon his use of the ‘dying for’ formula. In the final essay related to Ignatius, Tars Khomych compares the Jesus mystic dance in Acts of John 94-6 and the image of the celestial chorus in Ignatius, Ephesians 19, wondering how they relate to local cultic practices. Winrich Loehr concludes the volume by examining aspects of Valentinus’, Valentinian's and Basildean's Christology. None of these emerge from ‘a Docetism that arises out of an intellectual inability to think and properly conceptualise the divine incarnation that has happened in Jesus Christ. Rather, all three are attempts to understand the Christ-event with the conceptual tools provided by contemporary philosophy’. In making such a claim it is difficult to discern any overarching view of docetism behind these essays. Many in fact problematise the idea, and the sources in which reference to docetists is assumed, and in so doing ask important questions about its definition, its origins and its influence. Schröter's definition of docetism as describing forms of Christological thought, which foregrounded Jesus’ godly existence at the expense of his human, is sufficiently general to be workable, though it raises questions about judging when a statement comports with such a judgement. There is a sense in which whenever there is reflection on the relationship between Jesus’ divine and human nature, docetic-like issues are in the air, though we should beware of importing into the debate terms from a later period of the Church's history like ‘monophysite’. Suffice it to say that there were a variety of docetic-like positions in early Christian documents, making the term docetism, retained in the title of this book, redundant.