(December 15, 2013 at 11:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote:I think the Gnostics are a more plausible source. The Docetists were quasi-orthodox accepting the NT record of Jesus' words and actions, but since he was deemed to be God, they thought he could not suffer any human weakness including the pain of the crucifixion.Quote:Put yourself in the shoes of the Muslims who wrote the Qur'an.
Perhaps they were docetists all along?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm
Quote:Docetae
(Greek Doketai.)
A heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, "appearance" or "semblance", because they taught that Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ's human nature altogether, some only the reality of His human body or of His birth or death.
The Gnostics believed that salvation for spirits imprisoned in the material world came from illumination, secret teaching which showed how to transcend the material plane, and they wrote their own gospels of Jesus' supposed hidden teachings.
The relationship between the two groups can be roughly described as all Gnostics were Docetists, but not all Docetists were Gnostics.
The Gnostics deal with Jesus' suffering and death in various ways. Some taught, like the Docetists, that Jesus was only a phantasm appearing to be human as he went through the motions of his life. Others taught that the divine logos was united with the man Jesus but abandoned him once he was nailed up. Then there was the charming theory that Jesus disappeared on the road to Golgotha and left Simon of Cyrene to be crucified in his place—Jesus thought that was just a million yuks.
Anyway, Gnosticism was prevalent in Egypt, so it's quite plausible that a few centuries later a camel jockey like Mohammed would come across some confused survivals of the traditions.
I don't know where Ksa gets this idea of Muslim scholars who really wrote the Koran. Even if they did, assiduous fact checkers were few and far between in the ancient world. As Ehrman points out, if someone told a story of Jesus' resurrection even in the time of Paul, it was virtually impossible for the auditors to travel long distances and interview the supposed eye witnesses. However, I do wonder if Ksa may be confusing the Koran with the Hadith. The Koran is traditionally ascribed to Mohammed dictating verbatim the words that an angel spoke to him; the Hadith are the supposedly authoritative recollections of Mohammed's companions about his other teaching which is not found in the Koran.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House