Tertullian refuses to allow Apelles to appeal that the angels who visited Abraham and Lot in Genesis 18–19 were similarly possessed of sideral (elsewhere ' elemental ' ) flesh , arguing from the silence of the text that they were able to take human flesh ' from nothing ' . Yet despite presenting Apelles as having deserted Marcion's position, he also rejects any appeal by the latter to the same passage from Genesis , but as if it 18 19 Recovering Marcion's own views is made more complicated by Tertullian's apparent re - use of material from his argument in Against the Jews that the death of Jesus on the cross fulfilled prophecy demonstrated that the angels were ( like Christ ) possessed of an ' illusory ( putativus ) flesh ' ; he protests that for the purposes of their visitation their flesh was ' of true and firm human substance ' , although by God's creative freedom alone it was not conditioned by the necessary qualities of birth and inevitable death.2o It is not impossible that Marcion ( and Apelles ) did appeal to the same story , despite its provenance in the ' Old Testament ' , for it was well established in Christian apologetics , including as evidence of a pre - incarnate visitation of Christ , - perhaps offering Marcion an exercise in the same sort of turning of tables as Tertullian himself delights in . The story was also discussed more widely for the insights it might offer on the nature of angelic substantiality ; 11 whether Marcion pursued this to the point of deciding whether Jesus could not only eat and drink but also eject disputed question in relation to angels is not evident.22 — - a Tertullian's preferred term to describe the Jesus of Marcion is phantasma ; although not exclusive to the books against Marcion , it is predominantly found therein . Jesus cannot be ' believed a phantom ' since the crowds sought to seize him ; that he was able to elude them was because the crowd dispersed not because of his ' insubstantiality ' ( caligo ; Tertullian , AM IV . 8.2–3 ; cf. Luke 4.30 ) . For Tertullian the term denotes both mimicry and deception - hence his rhetorical question why did Jesus not adopt ' a phantasm of God ; it implies the ' illusory ' ( putativus ) as opposed to the ' true ' ( AM III . 8.3 ; 11.1 ) . Tertullian extracts considerable rhetorical mileage from the term : It allows him to associate Marcion's Christ with the ' illusory ' goodness of his God , and the ' phantom ' discipline that results from the absence of judge and judgement ( AM I. 27.1 ) ; this also provides its dominant sense in his attack on Marcion in the De Carne ( 1.4 ; 5.2 , 3 , 9 ) .23 However , its recurrence in the polemical tradition elsewhere confirms that it might be traced to Marcion himself , and it may point to the importance of Luke 24.37-9 in the argument , in the argument, where,
as has been seen, in the text known to Marcion (and perhaps to Tertullian), the disciples feared they were seeing a
phantasma (v. 37). Contemporary readers would not have been surprised had the disciples encountered a ' phantasm ' near the tomb of Jesus ; that the dead do so appear had been stated by Plato and is reaffirmed by Origen , who explains that this is due to the soul subsisting in ' a so - called luminous body ' , but who denies that this sufficiently explains the resurrection experiences ( Plato , Phaedo 81D ; Origen , C.Cels . II . 60 ) . Phantasm ' was also used of figures who appear in dreams and visions , although this still left although this still left considerable room for debate as to the nature of their substantial existence , and indeed whether they were to be trusted or taken as ' real.' 24 For example , Josephus describes the , certainly palpable , figure with whom Jacob wrestled as a ' phantasma ' ( Josephus , AJ I. 20.2 [ 331–4 ] ) , while Philo follows a follows a common trend in dismissing the apparitions , especially terrifying ones , that come in dreams as insubstantial and false ( Philo , De Somniis II.23 [ 162 ] ) . 25 Strikingly , Luke omits the account of Jesus walking on the water and responding to his disciples , who are terrified at an apparent phantasma , with the theophanic , ' I am ' ( Mark 6.49 ; Matt . 14.26 ) . It remains uncertain whether Marcion considered that the disciples , regularly given to misunderstanding , were mistaken in thinking they saw a phantasma , or only in letting that terrify them , prior perhaps to a theophanic self - revelation . Much would depend on the alternative possibilities against which the term was pitted , and what models were being applied . For example , the Treatise on Resurrection affirms the resurrection as ' spiritual ' and not ' fleshly ' , but denies that it is an illusion ( phantasia ) on the grounds of the appearance of Elijah and Moses ( [ NH I , 4 ] 48.3-19 ) ; conversely , a near - contemporary author on the same subject rejects those who appealed to Jesus ' likening of the risen state to that of the angels ( Luke 20.35-6 ) , and who then claimed that the risen Jesus was ' spiritual only , no longer in flesh , but proffered an appearance ( phantasia ) ) of flesh ' , implying the equivalence of ' appearance ' and ' spiritual ' ( Ps.Justin , De Res . 589 ) .
https://books.google.com/books?id=aAK7B ... 22&f=false
as has been seen, in the text known to Marcion (and perhaps to Tertullian), the disciples feared they were seeing a
phantasma (v. 37). Contemporary readers would not have been surprised had the disciples encountered a ' phantasm ' near the tomb of Jesus ; that the dead do so appear had been stated by Plato and is reaffirmed by Origen , who explains that this is due to the soul subsisting in ' a so - called luminous body ' , but who denies that this sufficiently explains the resurrection experiences ( Plato , Phaedo 81D ; Origen , C.Cels . II . 60 ) . Phantasm ' was also used of figures who appear in dreams and visions , although this still left although this still left considerable room for debate as to the nature of their substantial existence , and indeed whether they were to be trusted or taken as ' real.' 24 For example , Josephus describes the , certainly palpable , figure with whom Jacob wrestled as a ' phantasma ' ( Josephus , AJ I. 20.2 [ 331–4 ] ) , while Philo follows a follows a common trend in dismissing the apparitions , especially terrifying ones , that come in dreams as insubstantial and false ( Philo , De Somniis II.23 [ 162 ] ) . 25 Strikingly , Luke omits the account of Jesus walking on the water and responding to his disciples , who are terrified at an apparent phantasma , with the theophanic , ' I am ' ( Mark 6.49 ; Matt . 14.26 ) . It remains uncertain whether Marcion considered that the disciples , regularly given to misunderstanding , were mistaken in thinking they saw a phantasma , or only in letting that terrify them , prior perhaps to a theophanic self - revelation . Much would depend on the alternative possibilities against which the term was pitted , and what models were being applied . For example , the Treatise on Resurrection affirms the resurrection as ' spiritual ' and not ' fleshly ' , but denies that it is an illusion ( phantasia ) on the grounds of the appearance of Elijah and Moses ( [ NH I , 4 ] 48.3-19 ) ; conversely , a near - contemporary author on the same subject rejects those who appealed to Jesus ' likening of the risen state to that of the angels ( Luke 20.35-6 ) , and who then claimed that the risen Jesus was ' spiritual only , no longer in flesh , but proffered an appearance ( phantasia ) ) of flesh ' , implying the equivalence of ' appearance ' and ' spiritual ' ( Ps.Justin , De Res . 589 ) .
https://books.google.com/books?id=aAK7B ... 22&f=false
Statistics: Posted by Secret Alias — Wed Mar 12, 2025 2:23 pm