Christian Texts and History • Re: Hypothesis: Marcion believed Jesus was flesh and bone and not a phantom

Highlighting added:

Marcion thought that Jesus took the form of a man with flesh and bones during the time of Pontius Pilate. That's why the subject of Jesus being a phantom is not present in Irenaeus's five books against heresy.

Irenaeus at least twice says or implies that Marcion believed that JC did not have flesh (caro) genuinely.

I'll address that below, but keep in mind the point in my OP: that Marcion believed his Jesus was flesh and bone and not a phantom. Tertullian and Irenaeus may have had erroneous ideas on that themselves, based on what the later Marcionites believed rather than Marcion himself.

What do we mean by "phantom"? It's an excellent question, one you brought up on the other thread. According to Tertullian, Marcionites believed Jesus didn't have a bodily substance so couldn't be touched:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... an124.html


And that does seem to be the view of some of the posters on this board over the years, i.e. that "phantom" means "untouchable". But that's not what we see in Marcion's Gospel:


Yes, in an earlier post on this thread, you did suggest that maybe it's actually wrong to look at *Ev in terms of Marcion's redactional intent, since much of it probably presents the redactional intent of an earlier author. But it seems clear that Tertullian's and Irenaeus's views on what the later Marcionites thought differs from what we find in Marcion's Gospel. Did Marcion believe what was in his own Gospel? My argument is working on the assumption that he did.

From the link Giuseppe provided on the other thread, here is an article called "The Greek and Jewish Origins of Docetism: A New Proposal" by Ronnie Goldstein and Guy G Stroumsa from the journal Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity, 2007:


I'll note that Irenaeus doesn't explicitly state that Marcion passed through the body of Jesus' mother "as water through a tube", though I think that Marcion believed something like that. His Jesus was born but didn't take on the "fleshly" nature of a Demiurge's creation. I'll agree that the evidence for this position is very weak, and it's not part of my OP. "Docetism", the doctrine that Jesus appeared as an untangible phantom -- doesn't appear until after Irenaeus.

I mentioned one example in this thread already (on the right side, a reference to Marcion is implicit):

appearing in Judea during the time of Pontius Pilate (venientem in Judaeam temporibus Pontii Pilati praesidis), the governor who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, in the form of a man, manifesting to those who were in Judea (in hominis forma manifestatum his qui in Judeea erant),	Some think that he was manifested (manifestatum) as a man in a transfigured form (quemadmodum hominem transfiguratum),
Moreover, he distorted (circumcidens) the Gospel according to Luke, removing everything concerning the birth of the Lord (et omnia quas sunt de generatione Domini conscripta auferens),	but they do not claim that he was born (autem natum) or incarnate (incarnatum).

Here Irenaeus implies that Marcion denies both natum and incarnatum. Notice that this agrees with what Tertullian says about Marcion (no to both) and disagrees with what Tertullian says about Apelles (no to birth, but yes to flesh).

Actually Irenaeus doesn't link those statements directly to Marcion, any more than he links Jesus passing "as water through a tube" to Marcion as per my quote from the article above. Marcion doesn't seem to have Luke's birth narrative, but that is consistent with gMark. He doesn't appear to explicitly deny a birth for Jesus, though of course his Gospel has Jesus "manifesting" in Judea. On the other hand it has others thinking Jesus had a mother and sibling. At the end of the day it is irrelevant to my OP.

Also in Against Heresies 4.33.2.

https://archive.org/details/fivebooksof ... 4/mode/2up

2. Moreover, he shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion, [inquiring] how he holds that there are two gods, separated from each other by an infinite distance. Or how can he be good who draws away men that do not belong to him from him who made them, and calls them into his own kingdom? And why is his goodness, which does not save all [thus], defective? Also, why does he, indeed, seem to be good as respects men, but most unjust with regard to him who made men, inasmuch as he deprives him of his possessions? Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood? And why did He acknowledge Himself to be the Son of man, if He had not gone through that birth which belongs to a human being? How, too, could He forgive us those sins for which we are answerable to our Maker and God? And how, again, supposing that He was not flesh, but was a man merely in appearance, could He have been crucified, and could blood and water have issued from His pierced side? What body, moreover, was it that those who buried Him consigned to the tomb? And what was that which rose again from the dead?

That's a good find Peter; I missed that one! That does indeed suggest that Irenaeus thought that the Marcionites (and by extension, Marcion himself) believed that Jesus was not flesh, and so not susceptible to crucifixion. Does that suggest an intangible "phantom" Jesus? It's possible, though not explicit.

But I find it interesting that Irenaeus 'disproves' the assertion that Marcion's Jesus "was not flesh but was a man merely in appearance" by quoting from Marcion's own Gospel that Jesus had blood and a body which died, was buried and resurrected. My OP is about what Marcion believed, not Irenaeus. Does this not support my hypothesis; i.e. that Marcion believed Jesus was flesh and bone and not a phantom, and that it was the later Marcionites who developed the idea of Jesus being a phantom?

Statistics: Posted by GakuseiDon — Wed Mar 12, 2025 12:12 am

---