Yes, that's a good point. But I was wondering whether the heresiologists claimed that Marcion said that Jesus was a phantom or did they somehow assume Marcion believed it? The heresiologists tended to group certain heresies together on certain points, as if they all shared in that particular heresy. For example, Marcion is often grouped with Cerrdo. So assumptions about Marcion's beliefs might be unwarranted associations with Cerdo's beliefs.I have bad news. We are all reliant on the same heresiologists who are suspected of distorting Marcion in the first place for our knowledge of Marcion and the Evangelion. Where do you think 'the reconstructions of Marcion's gospel' come from? For that matter, can you establish that Marcion had a gospel without relying on the testimony of the early writers from the orthodox* church?Is there any evidence that Marcion himself was a docetist? Are we reliant on the same heresiologists whom are suspected of distorting Marcion in the first place?
The three writings of Marcion are: the Antitheses, *Ev and the Apostolikon. The Antitheses was comparing statements about Good in the Gospel with the evil done by God of the Old Testament. Would Christ's corporeal nature be a part of that? Probably not. *Ev portrays Jesus as an apparently Jewish man. There is nothing in the letters of Paul that suggests Christ was a phantom. No-one (as far as I know) quotes Marcion as claiming Christ was a phantom. The letters in the NT refer to people who deny that Christ came in the flesh, and the assumption is that they are referring to Marcion. I'd like to question that assumption.
There's an ironic symmetry there with those in modern times who think that Marcion possessed the truth about Paul!Litwa could use a dose of epistemic humility. His claim to possession of the truth about Marcion as opposed to all that false information out there is naive.
I definitely agree, but I think we can divide the Church Fathers' statements into (1) explicit statements by Marcion about Jesus being a phantom, and (2) assumptions by the Church Fathers that that was what Marcion taught.Everyone, including Litwa, has to make decisions about what to trust the church writers on and what not to. Litwa has apparently decided to trust their testimony on the contents of the Evangelion, but not on their testimony about Marcion's theology. This is a serious difficulty. It's fairly apparent we cannot trust the church writers on everything, but we can't distrust them on everything either without giving up our ability to talk about the Evangelion and Marcion's theology.
Looking at Justin Martyr: he criticizes Marcion for believing in a Higher God that isn't the Creator god, which he describes as blasphemous. He doesn't refer to Marcion's docetic beliefs at all.
Looking at Irenaeus: the only statement I could find (though perhaps I missed some) that suggests a docetic belief is the following:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... book1.html
But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator.
Does Jesus "being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world" and "manifested in the form of a man" mean a phantom? It could be read that way certainly, but it doesn't outright say it.
In Book 3, Irenaeus describes various heretical beliefs about Jesus and Christ:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... book3.html
But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if anyone carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; whilst others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
Irenaeus doesn't associate "others" with Marcion.
Looking at Tertullian: there are plenty of references to Marcion claiming that Christ was a phantom, and even Tertullian apparently quoting Marcion on this point. For example:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... an123.html
Therefore, since you are not permitted to resort to any instances of the Creator, as alien from the subject, and possessing special causes of their own, I should like you to state yourself the design of your god, in exhibiting his Christ not in the reality of flesh. If he despised it as earthly, and (as you express it) full of dung, why did he not on that account include the likeness of it also in his contempt? For no honour is to be attributed to the image of anything which is itself unworthy of honour. As the natural state is, so will the likeness be. But how could he hold converse with men except in the image of human substance? Why, then, not rather in the reality thereof, that his intercourse might be real, since he was under the necessity of holding it? And to how much better account would this necessity have been turned by ministering to faith rather than to a fraud! The god whom you make is miserable enough, for this very reason that he was unable to display his Christ except in the effigy of an unworthy, and indeed an alien, thing.
But I wonder if Tertullian is confusing a belief in a separatist impassible Christ and a docetic Jesus?
Would docetic beliefs about Christ be included in his Antitheses, given its nature?But the church fathers also say that Marcion circulated his gospel with the Antitheses, which Marcion wrote (not just edited) himself and that expressed his theological beliefs.
It's a fair point. But it seems strange to me that the Evangelion and Apostolikan don't appear to have an explicit phantom Jesus Christ in them, if I understand correctly.So if we accept the church fathers' testimony about the contents of Evangelion as reliable, and reject their testimony about Marcion's theological beliefs as unreliable, we're going to have an Evangelion that looks like Luke (with a lot missing) with occasional Mark/Matthew and peculiar readings. It will look very orthodox because Marcion created it from orthodox sources which he abridged. This should not surprise us.
Statistics: Posted by GakuseiDon — Sun Feb 16, 2025 2:07 pm
