Wilhite2016 Was Marcion A Docetist - The Body of Evidence Vs Tertuliian's Argument PDF

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36 Vigiliae
Christianae
brill.com/vc
Was Marcion a Docetist? The Body of Evidence

vs. Tertullians Argument
David E. Wilhite
Baylor University, US
David_Wilhite@Baylor.edu
Abstract
There is no credible evidence that Marcion was a docetist. Marcions alleged belief that
Christ was a phantasm is found in accusations made by Tertullian, but these accusa-
tions are a form of reductio ad absurdum and not firsthand information on Marcions
Christology. There are in fact remnants of data in Tertullians Adversus Marcionem,
which point to Marcions teaching about the material flesh of Christ, a flesh that suffers
and dies on the cross. Tertullian dismisses these artifacts as proof that Marcion was
foolishly inconsistent: he taught docetism, but still accepted Christs suffering and
death. Scholars should no longer accept Tertullians caricature uncritically, especially
in light of the overwhelming amount of other second and third century sources that
are unanimously silent about any docetic thinking in Marcion. Moreover, much of the
confusion in modern scholarship is shown to derive from Adolf von Harnacks equivo-
cating explanations about Marcions alleged docetism.
Keywords
Marcion docetism Tertullian
Throughout his work, Adversus Marcionem, Tertullian mocks Marcion. For

example, in response to Marcions understanding of Christ, wherein Christ is
said to be one of the phantasms, Tertullian retorts, If, being the Son of man,
* The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers, whose recommendations greatly
improved this article.
koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 6|doi 10.1163/15700720-12341272

2 Wilhite
he [Christ] is of human birth, there is body derived from body. Evidently you
could more easily discover a man born without heart or brains, like Marcion,
than without a body, like Marcions Christ. Go and search then for the heart,
or the brains, of that man of Pontus.1 The claim about Marcions missing brain
has been dismissed by historians as unreliable. The other half of this statement,
however, concerning Jesus phantasmal body has generally been accepted
as historical evidence of Marcions docetism. Why? Obviously, the former is a
witticism while the latter is established by the numerous witnesses from the
so-called catholic writers who opposed Marcion. This second assumption,
I contend, is mistaken.
A critical reading of the primary sources finds docetism to be a possible
implication of Marcions thinking, but not an explicit teaching of Marcion
himself.2 My aim is not to prove that Marcion did not teach docetism (for I do
not intend to prove a negative). Rather, I aim to show that there is no credible
evidence that Marcion was a docetist. Furthermore, there are traces of incar-
nation in Marcions teachings, despite the fact that Tertullian attempted to
bury this evidence in reductio ad absurdum conclusions.
I will first review the extant sources on Marcionism, wherein Marcions
docetism is entirely unknown. Then, I will devote a section to Tertullian, the
most extensive source on Marcion, and differentiate Tertullians argument
from anything that could count as evidence in his writings. Finally, I will then
conclude with a brief statement about the way scholars since Harnack have
understood Marcions Christology as docetic.
Before proceeding, a word of clarification is in order regarding the concept
of docetism itself, since a wide range of teachings falls under this label. With
limited space I cannot provide an exhaustive discussion of the concept, but
some examples need to be given to illustrate the kinds of docetisms known in
1 Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.10.15-16 (trans. E. Evans, Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1972], 303-305; text from R. Braun, Tertullien: Contre Marcion [SC 456;
Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 2001], 140:...phantasmata...Si natus ex homine est, ut filius
hominis, corpus ex corpore est. Plane facilius invenias hominem natum cor non habere vel cere-
brum, sicut ipsum Marcionem, quam corpus, ut Christum Marcionis. Atque adeo inspice cor
Pontici aut cerebrum).
2 For a compilation of the references to Marcions Christology in the ancient sources, see
R. Perrotta, Haersis: Gruppi, movimenti e fazioni del giudaismo antico e del cristianesimo
(da Filone Alessandrino a Egesippo) (Bologna: Edizioni Dehoniane, 2008), 406-07. For an
in depth analysis of Marcions Christology, see E. Riparelli, Il volto del Cristo dualista: Da
Marcione ai catari (Bern: Peter Lang, 2008), 23-91. More generally, see W. Lhr, Markion,
RAC 24 (2010), 147-73.
Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Was Marcion a Docetist ? 3
Marcions era and to allow for a critical analysis of this alleged teaching
in Marcion.
Hippolytus referred to those who styled themselves Docet.3 He spe-
cifically described this groups unique cosmogony, their belief that the Savior
formed his own flesh in the heavenly realm and was then born by Mary, and
their view that his flesh was left on the cross while his soul escaped t riumphant.4
Hippolytuss source for the Docetists is unnamed, but he does provide many
specific details. Nevertheless, the existence of such a distinct self-identifying
sect has been questioned.5 The label docetist, rather than naming a school,
can function in different ways for different authors. The early Christian writ-
ers who provide information about Marcion will be treated further below.
Here, we can simply illustrate the range of meanings associated with this label.
Clement of Alexandria, for example, knows of docetists, but he applies the
term in this instance to anyone who teaches that procreation is evil.6 In this
line of thought, Irenaeus can claim Marcion and Saturninus to have been the
founders of the Encratites, although he does not call this docetism but instead
blames their denial of the good Creator.7 More generally, it is often said that
Gnostics taught docetism, but here too it must be conceded that many of the
so-called Gnostic texts in fact do affirm a real flesh of Christ that suffered and
died,8 and so the category of docetism is one that demands further nuance
and critical analysis.9
Because of such inconsistent usages of this term by ancient writers, his-
torians have had to differentiate several forms of teaching. Georg Strecker
3 Ref. 8.1 (Miroslav Marcovich, Hippolytus: Refutatio omnium haeresium [PTS 25; Berlin:
De Gruyter, 1986], 323; trans. ANF 5:117).
4 Ref. 8.1-4.
5 J.G. Davies, The Origins of Docetism, SP 6 (1962), 15-17.
6 E.g. Strom. 3.17.102.
7 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.28.1; cf. Hippolytus, Ref. 8.13, on the Encratites, but he makes no connec-
tion with Marcion, admitting that many different sects held to this teaching; and Eusebius,
Hist. eccl. 4.28, blames Tatian for the doctrine of encratism.
8 E.g. Ap. Jas. I,2.5 (Robinson, NHL, 32); Gos. Truth I,3.18, 26, cf. 31 (Robinson, NHL, 40, 44; cf. 46);
Ep. Pet. Phil. VIII,2.133, 136 (Robinson, NHL, 434-35); Melch. IX,1.5 (Robinson, NHL, 441); Tri.
Tract. I,5.115, cf. 125 (Robinson, NHL, 92-93, cf. 97); cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.6.1, on Ptolemys
suffering Christ (discussed below).
9 As has been done with the category of Gnosticism, see, for example, M.A. Williams,
Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1996); K. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, 2003); and I. Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth,
Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).

4 Wilhite
c onveniently lists three kinds of docetism, each of which will be given a label
here for the sake of discussion.10
1) Replacementist docetism, where Christ appears to be crucified, but

in reality Simon of Cyrene took his place. This form is very rare in the
sources: it can be found in one of the Nag Hammadi texts, and Irenaeus
accuses Basilides of this teaching.11
2) Possessionistic docetism, where Christ appears to be in flesh, but in real-
ity he has attached himself to Jesus the human. Jesus suffers while the
heavenly Christ does notin some instances the heavenly being has
abandoned Jesus on the cross.12 This form is very common in the ancient
sources.13
3) Phantasmal docetism, where Christ appeared to be flesh, but in fact was
an intangible spirit. Some believe this was the earliest form of docetism.14
Even with these three options, there is much room for further nuance. In short,
we must avoid making docetism into a fixed thing, and instead we will need
to speak of a spectrum of docetic thinking among early Christians.15 The first
kind of docetism listed above is rare, and no ancient source accuses Marcion
of holding to such a view. Therefore, we can leave this option to the side for our
present purposes.
10 The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, ed. H. Attridge (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress, 1996), 69-76. For more recent discussion and bibliography, see D.R. Streett, They
Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011),
38-48.
11 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.24.4, for Basilides. However, Pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. omn. haer. 1.5,
adds that Basilidess Christ was a phantasm and without flesh (in phantasmate, sine sub-
stantia carnis), which is why Simon had to be crucified in his place. Cf. Treat. Seth VII,2.56
(Robinson, NHL, 365).
12 Often the interpretation of The Gospel of Peter 4-5 (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.3.2, 3.25.6,
6.12.2-6, on its use by the ); however, see J.W. McCant, The Gospel of Peter:
Docetism Reconsidered, NTS 30 (1984), 258-73; and P. Head, On the Christology of the
Gospel of Peter, VC 46 (1992), 209-24.
13 The examples are numerous; a few variants are provided below.
14 Arguably the view held by those opponents of John and Ignatius; see Strecker, The
Johannine Letters, 40-44; and R.M. Grant, The Earliest Christian Gnosticism, CH 22
(1953), 81-97; cf. 1 John 4:2-3 and Ignatius (e.g. Smyrn. 5; Trall. 10). Also, cf. Polycarp, Phil. 7.1.
15 R. Goldstein and G.A.G. Stroumsa, The Greek and Jewish Origins of Docetism: A New
Proposal, ZAC 10 (2006), 423, extend Williamss approach to Gnosticism for the study of
Docetism.

The second kind of docetism listed here, possessionistic docetism, was so

common in early Christian sources, that it too must be understood as entailing
its own range of possible expressions. For example, the identity of the heav-
enly being who possesses Jesus ranges as widely as and in accordance with
the many Gnostic cosmogonies. Jesus could be possessed by the Father,16
Christ,17 the Savior,18 Melchizedek,19 the Holy Spirit,20 or some other
aeon or power,21 to name but a few examples.22 This possession took place
either at Jesus baptism,23 but then the heavenly entity left Jesus on the cross,24
if not sooner.25 Since Jesus was left to suffer and die, it is commonly assumed
that he did not resurrect, although there is also an array of possibilities regard-
ing the resurrection including Jesus resurrecting in a spiritual body (cf. 1 Cor.
15:44, 50).26 Moreover, what is called here possessionistic docetism is some-
times synonymous with adoptionism or dynamic monarchianism, to invoke
other problematic categories.27 Despite the complicated nature of this form
of docetism and the extensive examples available from the ancient sources,
this brief treatment of it will suffice for the present discussion, sinceas will
be demonstrated belowno ancient source accuses Marcion of this kind of
teaching.
The third kind of docetism, phantasmal docetism, still requires further
elaboration. While the so-called orthodox writers will easily oppose true and
false flesh, many others did not accept such a simple binary opposition.28
Even in Ptolemys docetism, which according to Irenaeus was a possessionistic
form, there is a nuanced view of flesh: all of the aeons united themselves
16 E.g. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.33.

17 Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.7.2.
18 E.g. Apoc. Pet. VII,3.81 (in Robinson, NHL, 377).
19 E.g. Hieracas (see Epiphanius, Pan. 55.5.2-3; cf. Hippolytus, Ref. 7.36).
20 E.g. the Ebionites (see Epiphanius, Pan. 30.13.7).
21 E.g. Carpocrates (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.25.1; Hippolytus, Ref. 7.32; Epiphanius, Panarion
27.2.5). Cf. The Gospel of Peter 5.
22 Cf. Epiphanius, Pan. 26.10.1-5.
23 E.g. the Ebionites (Epiphanius, Pan. 30.13.7); and Theodotus (Hippolytus, Ref. 7.35).
24 Hippolytus, Ref. 8.3; cf. The Gospel of Philip (in Robinson, NHL, 144, 151).
25 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.7.2; Tertullian, Adv. Val. 27.
26 E.g. the Sethians (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.30.13) and Basilides (Hippolytus, Ref. 7.27);
cf. Ap. Jas. I,2.12 (Robinson, NHL, 35); Gos. Truth I,3.20 (Robinson, NHL, 42). Marcions
denial of the bodily resurrection will be discussed below.
27 See A. von Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma (trans. E.K. Mitchell; London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1893), 169-76.
28 E.g. descriptions of Jesus in Acts of John 89-90, 93, 98, 101; and cf. Acts of Peter 20.

6 Wilhite
together joined with a pre-existent soul called Christ, and then this possessed-
Christ wove for himself a kind of body that has tangible qualities.29 Similarly,
Valentinus reportedly taught that Christs body was tangible,30 only it did not
need normal human functions such as digestion.31 Many from the Valentinian
branch of thinking spoke of Christs substance as made with ineffable art,
brought with him from heaven, as able to pass through Mary like water.32 Since
some sources are accused of docetism but still speak of Christs material activi-
ties (e.g. eating), some scholars have even spoken of semi- or quasi-docetic
conceptions of Christ.33
Another expression of phantasmal docetism was that taught by Basilides,
who believed that Jesuss psychic-body was created simultaneously with the
stars.34 The ouranosarkic view of Christ can also be found in Apelles, who
believed that Christ came to earth already embodied in a kind of flesh made of
something akin to the angels, that is a substance like the stars.35
Here, it may be tempting to assume that Apelless view might give us some
insight into Marcions own teaching, since he is said to have been Marcions
student. However, Tertullian is clear that it is precisely on this teaching about
Christs heavenly flesh that Apelles differs from Marcion.36 With Marcions
Christology, it will be demonstrated that Tertullian inconsistently spoke of
Marcions Christ as a phantasm while also referring to Marcions Christ as
29 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.6.1.

30 Extracts from Theodotus 59.
31 Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.7.59.
32 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.7.2: erat factum inenarrabili arte/ (SC
264:104-05); cf. 3.11.3; Tertullian, De carn. Christ. 1.15; Hippolytus, Ref. 6.35.5-7; Ps.Tertullian,
Adv. omn. haer. 4; and Extracts from Theodotus 59; also see the Protoevangelium of James
20.1-3; Ascension of Isaiah 11.7-14.
33 E.M. Yamauchi, The Crucifixion and Docetic Christology, Concordia Theological
Quarterly 46 (1982), 5. J.L. Papandrea, Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache
to Nicaea (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2012), 58-77, speaks of hybrid Christology.
34 According to Hippolytus, Ref. 7.27.
35 Tertullian, De carn. Christ. 6. Like the angelic bodies, the various understandings of
demons in antiquity can inform this discussion; see G.A. Smith, How Thin is a Demon?
JECS 16 (2008), 479-512.
36 De carn. 6.1; Praescr. 30.5. Tertullians statement (in Adv. Marc. 3.9.1) about the Old
Testament angels (in phantasmate, putativae...carnis) cannot be taken to reflect
Marcions actual teachings since Marcion did not use the Old Testament. The passage
clearly indicates that Tertullian is anticipating possible objections from other heretics
(3.9.7) about the need for a fleshly resurrection (discussed in Adv. Marc. 3.8.6-7); this is not
a reporting of actual Marcionite teachings.

suffering bodily.37 It is possible that Apelles and Marcion were closer in their
teachings than Tertullian claims, and yet it will be shown that the attempt
to identify Marcions teachings with Apelles entirely is to accept uncritically
Tertullians anachronistic accusation. Furthermore, even if Marcion affirmed
Christs flesh as akin to the angels (as will be discussed below), Marcion still
held to something other than a strict phantasmal docetismwhich is the
accusation in question here.
According to Tertullian, Marcion taught that Christ had no flesh at all;
instead, Christ was a phantasm. By phantasm, ancient writers meant an
appearance of a spirit or being that does not have material flesh.38 Christ
simply appeared on earth, but he was not tangible.39 Another complication
is that some spoke of Christs body as spiritual but they did so in regard
to Christs post-resurrection body, and this at times was likely generalized
by orthodox opponents to intonate that the heretic taught phantasmal
Docetism writ large.40
37 The primary texts will be cited below. N. Brox, Doketismuseine Problemanzeige,

ZKG 95 (1984), 301-14, set out to nuance the concept of docetism, including the notion
of Christ as a phantasm, to better reflect the unique usage of various early Christian
writers. However, Riparelli, Il volto del Cristo dualista, 57, pointed out that Broxs defini-
tion still could not apply to Marcion (...una tale caratterizzazione non pu essere con-
siderata per nulla adeguata a ci che credeva e insegnava Marcione), even though Brox
(Doketismus, 306) considered Marcion to have held to said docetic Christology.
38 See J.M. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second
Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 375, for pre-Marcionite usage;
cf. BDAG, 1049. Also, see the e.g. of Saturninus at Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.24.2, the Savior
was unborn...incorporeal and without shape (innatum...incorporalem et sine
figura/... ) (SC 264:322-23); cf. Hippolytus, Ref. 7.28;
Ps.-Tertullian, Adv. omn. haer. 1.4: Christum in substantia corporis non fuisse, et phantas-
mate tantum quasi passum fuisse.
39 Ps.-Tertullian, Adv. omn. haer. 6, accuses Cerdo of this. This author, however, goes farther
than earlier sources (e.g. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.4.3; also, cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.10.11)
who do not attribute to him this form of docetism. Pseudo-Tertullian is likely following
Tertullian: since Marcion taught this form of docetism (according to Tertullian), then he
likely learned it from his teacher, Cerdo, who deemed the created order evil (cf. Irenaeus,
Adv. haer. 1.5.4; 1.27.1-2; Hippolytus, Ref. 10.15). Such a discussion, however, risks bringing
us into a circular argument. The important caveat is that the earlier sources on Cerdo
make no such claim about his Christology.
40 Cf. Soph. Jes. Chr. III,4.91 (Robinson, NHL, 222); also see Saturninus, who taught both
that Christ was a phantasm and that there will be bodily resurrection (according to
Ps.-Tertullian, Adv. omn. haer. 1.4).

8 Wilhite
It will be shown below that Marcion did deny a resurrection of the flesh,
and Tertullian used this teaching (along with other elements) to construct
Marcion as teaching phantasmal docetism even with regard to his pre-
resurrection life. For now, we can focus strictly on phantasmal docetism, since
the first two kinds are nowhere attributed to Marcion. Is there credible evi-
dence that Marcion himself taught this form of docetism? Or, is the notion of a
phantasm a caricature of his teaching constructed by his opponents? In order
to address this question, we will now turn to the sources on Marcion.
The Earliest Sources on Marcion
In all of the second century sources, the heresy attributed to Marcion is not
docetism, but ditheism, or theological dualism. We can now turn to those
sources to hear the specific claims about Marcions teachings.
The first possible sources for Marcion is Polycarp. Although never explic-
itly naming Marcion, Polycarp is understood by some to counter Marcion
in his statements against docetism.41 The problem with this view, according
to Michael Holmes, is that Polycarps letter lacks distinctively Marcionite
features.42 Polycarp to be sure rejects a docetic opponent, but this opponent
is simply not Marcion, and so his letter does not constitute valid evidence of
Marcions teachings. There is the famous encounter between Marcion and
Polycarp reported by Irenaeus, where upon meeting Marcion, Polycarp blurted,
I know you, [youre] the first-born of Satan.43 However, even if one were to
41 E.g. P. Meinhold, Polykarpos (1), PRE 21 (1952), 1685-1687 (C. Markschies in the latest
edition also suggests Marcion is in view); and T. Aono, Die Entwicklung des paulinischen
Gerichtsgedankens bei den Apostolischen Vtern (Bern: Peter Lang, 1979), 384-97.
42 M.W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 3rd ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker Press, 2009), 276. Others include J.B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers (London:
Macmillan, 1889), 2.2:918; L.W. Barnard, The Problem of St Polycarps Epistle to the
Philippians, in Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background (Oxford 1966), 33-35;
Schoedel, Polycarp, 23-26; Dehandschutter, The Epistle of Polycarp, 121; H. Paulsen,
Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochia und der Brief des Polykarp von Smyrna (Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 120-21; Berding, Polycarp and Paul, 18-25; P. Oakes, Leadership and
Suffering in the Letters of Polycarp and Paul to the Philippians, in Trajectories, ed. Gregory
and Tuckett, 358; and P.A. Hartog, Polycarps Epistle to the Philippians and the Martyrdom
of Polycarp: Introduction, Text, and Commentary (Oxford Apostolic Fathers; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2013).
43 As reported by Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.3.4 (trans. mine; SC 211:42-43, Cognosco te primoge-
nitum Satanae/ ). Cf. Polycarp, Phil. 7.1-2, which

defend this account as historically valid, there is no mention of Marcions

docetism.44
Justin Martyr, who claims to be writing during Marcions lifetime, will report
Marcions heresy, and yet he makes no mention of docetism.45 Marcions mis-
take, according to Justin, is to deny God the Maker of this universe and confess
some other who is greater, beyond him.46 In all of the fragments of Justin that
survive, Marcion is merely said to view Christ as another god; mention is never
made of Marcions Christ merely appearing to have flesh.47
Eusebius, although writing in the fourth century, records earlier witnesses
to Marcions teachings. Rhodo (c.180-190) only knows Marcion as one who
teaches two first principles.48 Another source given by Eusebius opposed the
is no longer understood as referring to Marcion (see N.A. Dahl, Der Erstgeborene Satans
und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk. 7.1 und Joh 8.44), in Apophoreta: Festschrift fr Ernst
Haenchen, ed. W. Eltester et al. [Berlin: Verlag Alfred Tpelmann, 1964], 70-84). Moreover,
Irenaeus is sometimes understood to be exaggerating this encounter (at best; e.g.
A.H. McNeile, An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, rev. ed. [Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1927], 269-70; William R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp,
Fragments of Papias [= vol. 5 of Robert M. Grant, The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation
and Commentary; New York: T. Nelson, 1964], 3). More importantly, it should be noted that
Irenaeuss theological aim in citing this confrontation between Polycarp and Marcion
is to establish the catholic tradition and the scriptures as unadulterated truth (3.2.2),
wherein the Lord and the Creator are one and the samenot an alien god opposed to
the demiurge; docetism is nowhere in view.
44 variant of the phrase Son of Satan appears in John 8:44 (
), and it is applied to those who deny Jesus is the I am of the OTMarcions
primary heresy (cf. Matt. 13:38 and Acts 13:10, which could have the same implication).
In short, docetism is nowhere in view; his primary error is misunderstanding Christs
divine identity (not his human nature).
45 E.g. 1 Apol. 26.5.
46 1 Apol. 26.5 (trans. D. Minns and P. Parvis, Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies
[Oxford: Oxford University Press], 151).
47 Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.11.8) says that Justin wrote a work against Marcion, but he strangely
(4.11.9) cites 1 Apol. 26. Also, see Hist. eccl. 4.18.9, And the discourses of the man were
thought so worthy of study even by the ancients, that Irenaeus quotes his words: for
instance, in the fourth book of his work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows:
And Justin well says in his work against Marcion, that he would not have believed the
Lord himself if he had preached another God besides the Creator; and again in the fifth
book of the same work he says: And Justin well said that before the coming of the Lord
Satan never dared to blaspheme God, because he did not yet know his condemnation;
ref. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 4.6.2; 5.26.2 (NPNF 2-1:197).
48 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.13.3. Rhodo also notes how divided the Marcionites are with later
writers such as Apelles, Potitus and Basilicus holding to different opinions.

10 Wilhite
Phrygians in the late second century.49 This anonymous author dismisses the
Marcionite martyrs along with the Montanist martyrs, for they witness not to
truth (or Truth).50 The writer then states, those called Marcionites, from
the heresy of Marcion, say that they have a multitude of martyrs for Christ; yet
they do not confess Christ himself in truth.51 It is unlikely that this statement
implies that Christ was confessed by Marcionites as a phantasm. More prob-
ably, the anti-Marcionite source indicates that the Marcionites denied Christ
to be one with the Creatorthe claim of all other second century writers
and the only charge against Marcion made by Eusebius or in any of Eusebius
sources.52 While this authors statement is inconclusive, it is significant: if he
thought Marcion a docetist, this is a missed opportunity to state the fact that
Marcionite martyrs suffered what Marcions Christ did not. The most plausible
interpretation of this datum is that the anonymous writer knew nothing of
Marcions docetism.
Irenaeus offers more extensive comments on Marcion, and therefore we
should first elaborate his view of Christ and why he opposes docetism of any
kind. In opposition to his various opponents, Irenaeus constructed a the-
ology of the incarnation wherein believers can imitate Christ through see-
ing and hearing [videntes et per auditum/......] because
Christ has traded his blood...his flesh for our flesh...through his incarna-
tion [sanguine...carnem suam pro nostris carnibus...per suam incarna-
tionem/... ...
].53 Whereas, his opponents say Christ appeared so [dicunt eum
apparuisse/ ], Irenaeus insists these things do not
seem to be this way, but became so in true existence [non enim putative haec,
sed in substantia veritatis fiebant/ ,
].54 According to Irenaeus, the heretics, though diverse in their teach-
ing about a Christ without flesh [sine carne/],55 err by dening Christs
true blood and flesh [vere sanguinem et carnem/ ].56
49 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.14.2 simply calls him a certain one of these (NPNF 2-1:230) who
wrote against the Phrygians. Jerome, De vir. ill. 37, claims it was Rhodo.
50 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.14.21.
51 N PNF 2-1:233.
52 Minns and Parvis, Justin, 151, interpret the statement in this latter sense based on Eusebius
other information about Marcion.
53 Adv. haer. 5.1.1 (my trans.; Rousseau, SC 153:16-21).
55 Adv. haer. 3.11.3 (my trans.; Rousseau and Doutreleau, SC 153:148-49).

What then does Irenaeus say about Marcion? In book one of his Adversus
haereses after discussing Cerdo, who separated the God of the Law and Prophets
from Christ, Marcion is said to develop his doctrine.57 Marcion claims the
demiurge is evil, while Jesus father is a higher goda charge Irenaeus will
repeat at least fourteen other times throughout his work, twice citing Justin as
witness.58 After this Irenaeus attacks Marcions editing of the scripturesan
accusation he raises on at least four different occasions throughout his work.59
Next, Marcion is said to teach that souls, not flesh, will be saveda denial
of a material body in the resurrection.60 There are then four instances where
Irenaeus simply mentions Marcion as lacking credibility without mention of
any specific teaching.61 In only two passages could one claim Irenaeus as evi-
dence of Marcions docetic Christology, and so we will treat each in turn.
The first possible instance is found in book three where Marcion is men-
tioned amidst a handful of other heretics.62 After several paragraphs of such
names, Irenaeus says in general terms, But, according to these heretics [secun-
dum illos/], neither did the Word become flesh, nor Christ, nor
Savior, who was emitted from all the Aeons.63 This statement, I suspect, lent
itself to being interpreted by third century writers to imply that Marcion, like
Valentinus and the other heretics taught a docetic Christology. Such a conclu-
sion, however, is not a valid reading of Irenaeus, for when Marcion is named
in the previous paragraph before Valentinus is discussed, the only teaching
mentioned is the rejection of the Creator God as good (3.11.2). The statement
about these people [illos/] is against those who differentiate the
Word, Christ, and the Savior as different aeonsa cosmogony nowhere attrib-
uted to Marcion. Therefore, out of Irenaeuss numerous references to Marcion,
there is only one possible instance remaining where the heretic is identified as
a docetist.
Irenaeuss accusation that Marcion taught docetism appears much later in
book four when Irenaeus returns to Marcion in the midst of a larger argument
about how to interpret the Old Testament. The passage merits citation in full.
57 Adv. haer. 1.27.2 (M.C. Steenberg and D.J. Unger, St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies
(Book 3) [ACW 64; New York: Paulist Press, 2012], 53).
58 Cf. 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.3.1, 2.28.6, 2.30.9, 2.31.1, 3.11.2, 3.11.7, 3.12.12; 3.25.3, 4.2.2, 4.4.2 (citing Justin),
4.4.4, 5.26.2 (citing Justin).
59 Cf. 3.11.9, 3.12.12, 3.13.1-4, 4.13.1; cf. 4.8.2 on Abraham.
60 1.27.3.
61 3.2.1, 3.3.4, 3.4.3, 3.12.5.
62 Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans in 3.11.1; Valentinus and the Gnostics in 3.11.2.
63 3.11.3 (ANF 1:426).

12 Wilhite
Moreover, he [a true disciple] shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion,

inquiring how [Quomodo/] he holds that there are two gods, sepa-
rated 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 [Quomodo autem/ ], 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 answer-
able to our Maker and God?64 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?65
64 Cf. Tertullian, De carn. Christ. 5; Adv. Marc. 4.40-43.

65 Adv. haer. 4.33.2: Examinabit autem et doctrinam Marcionis. Quomodo accipiat duos deos
esse infinita distantia separatos ab invicem? Vel quemadmodum bonus erit qui alienos
homines abstrahit ab eo qui fecit et ad suum advocate regnum? Et quare bonitas eius deficit,
non omnes salvans? Et quare circa homines quidem bonus videtur, in ipsum autem qui fecit
homines iniustissimus, auferens ab eo quae sunt eius? Quomodo autem iuste Dominus, si
alterius patris existi, huius conditionis quae est secundum nos accipiens panem suum corpus
esse confitebatur, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit? Quemadmodum
autem et peccata nobis dimittere poterat, quae nostro debeamus Factori et Deo? Quomodo
autem et cum caro non esset, sed pareret quasi homo, crucifixus est et e latere eius puncto
sanguis exit et aqua? Quod autem corpus sepelierunt sepultores, et quid illud erat quod sur-
rexit a mortuis? / .
;
;
, ;
, , ;
, ,
;
, ;
, ; ,
, ;
, (ANF 1:507; SC 100.2:804-7).

There are four items worthy of note about this passage.

(1) First, it may be of import that the textual tradition for these last two
questions (starting with Quomodo autem), as is true for so much of Irenaeus
text, is unattested by other ancient writers, and so represents the product of
the later Latin translator. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, I will accept
the edition as authentic. (2) Next, it should be clarified that this string of accu-
sations does not explicitly claim that Marcion taught Christ was flesh merely in
appearance, but is making this accusation (only supposing in the translators
interpretation) based on Marcions denial of Christs birth. In fact, Marcion
is credited for believing in a body that was pierced and bled (crucifixus est
et e latere eius puncto sanguis exit et aqua), and which was buried and rose
again (corpus sepelierunt sepultores, et quid illud erat quod surrexit a mortuis).
(3) Also, Irenaeus structural statements may indicate a shift from Marcions
doctrines (Quomodo.../ ...) to other teachings under attack in
this section (Quomodo autem/ ....) (4) Finally, the argument
is much like the previous example in that a whole array of heretics are in
view. Marcions mistake (theological dualism) stands at the head of this del-
uge of errors, but there are other mistakes listed. This statement comes after
Irenaeus shifts the whole argument of book four (in 4.30ff.) so as to demon-
ize the Valentinians as Marcionites.66 This section, therefore, is an intentional
obfuscation of Marcionite and Valentinian teaching, for in the next para-
graph (4.33.3) Valentinus is again named and is then the only one named even
though the argument is the samehow rightly to read the scriptures.67 In the
next chapter Irenaeus claims he is speaking in opposition to all the heretics,
and principally against the followers of Marcion.68 Irenaeus then explains
how the reason Marcion is the principal problem is because he teaches two
principlesthat the prophets were from another God.69 The argument is
over the prophets and Israels scriptures, a problem Marcion created but other
heretics like Valentinus developed further. Nothing else is said in this chapter
about Christ as a phantasm or about any other form of docetism.70 In fact, it is
66 I.e. the same mistake of distancing Christ from Creator, for the Valentinians make a two-
fold mistake: (1) they deny Jesus is Christsee above; and (2) they, like Marcion, deny
Jesus is one with the Creator.
67 Even if Irenaeus were correct that there is a connection between Marcion and Valentinus,
this would tell us little about Marcions position.
68 4.34.1 (ANF 1:511).
69 4.31.1; cf. 4.34.5.
70 Lieu, Marcion, 39, comments on this passage to say, Certainly, Irenaeus himself does
understand Marcion to have undervalued Jesus humanity, but he is not much more

14 Wilhite
noteworthy that in 5.1.2, where those who teach docetism are denounced, only
Valentinus is named, not Marcion.
Taking these four points together, this passage from Irenaeus, which is the
only possible example from the second century that could attest to a d ocetic
Christology in Marcion, is dubious evidence at best. It is more plausible to under-
stand this passage as Irenaeuss way of caricaturing several different heresies
most of which were docetic in some way, while at the same time tacitly admit-
ting that Marcion himself taught that Christ suffered and died bodily.
In sum, Marcions error according to Irenaeus is theological dualism, and it
is this error that Irenaeus attacks whenever Marcion is mentioned. Other her-
etics, especially the Valentinians, expand upon Marcions dualism to include
a whole host of heretical teachings, including docetism,71 but historians can-
not accept Irenaeuss conflation of Marcion and later Marcionitesthat is,
Valentiniansuncritically. Thus far, there is no credible evidence from the
second century that indicates Marcion believed Christ was a phantasm.
Later Sources on Marcion(ism)
For later opponents of Marcion, or better Marcionism, the primary charge

continues to be the heresy of separating Christ from the Creator God of the
Old Testament. Alongside this primary error, we find only supplementary and
uncertain accusations about Marcionite docetism.
Hippolytus, who according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.22.2) wrote an entire work
against Marcion, only mentions Marcion twice in his Refutatio omnium haere-
sium. In the first instance, Hippolytus repeats the claim that Marcion believed
in two first-principles ( ).72 Nothing else is added about Marcions
teachings in this section. Later in book ten Hippolytus contradicts himself
and states that Marcion, like Cerdo, held to three such principles (...
): goodness, evil, and mattera contradiction that raises doubts
about Hippolytus credibility in this later section.73 Adding to the confusion,
Hippolytus then paradoxically claims that Marcions Christ was incarnate but
explicit about what he thinks Marcion did claim... and she too notes that this statement
(in 4.33.2) is really a series of challenges to different heretics.
71 See I.M. Mackenzie, Irenaeuss Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching: A Theological
Commentary and Translation (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002), 36-7, 76, 87-8, 92, 94.
72 7.29 (Marcovich 304).
73 10.19 (Marcovich 398).

not incarnate, for he only appeared () so but was in fact a phantasm.74

In this instance Hippolytus has simply expanded (and wrongly so) on Irenaeus
statement that Marcion did teach how Christ appeared in the form of a man
[in hominis forma manifesta].75 In Hippolytus rendering, Marcion asserts
that he appeared as a man [ ] though not being a
man, and as incarnate though not being incarnate. And he maintains that his
manifestation was only phantastic, and that he underwent neither genera-
tion nor passion except in appearance.76 No such elaboration can be found in
Irenaeus, and Hippolytus has clearly inferred that Irenaeuss statement about
the form of a man was code for docetism in Marcionas it was for other
docetists.77 It is also noteworthy that Marcion is not mentioned at all in book
eight of this work, which is primarily devoted to the error of the Docetists
(discussed above in the introduction).78 Hippolytus, therefore, does not offer
credible evidence of Marcions docetism, but instead offers inconsistent and
second hand accusations.
Similarly, Clement of Alexandria offers conflicting information on Marcion.
On three occasions Clement repeats the common knowledge about Marcions
theological dualism and his denial of a materially resurrected body.79 In
another instance Clement argues against the Marcionite view of a spiritual
body in the resurrection at great length, still with no mention of Marcion as a
docetist.80 In yet another instance, however, Clement argues against Marcions
denial of Christs birth.81 Clement then curiously references the fact that a cer-
tain Cassian and the notorious Valentinus use Christs unborn state as proof for
his psychic body; Clement then adds in passing that Marcion does so as well.
In assessing Clements remark, we can make two observations. First, this
statement itself is a different idea than a phantasm: Clement explains in
this section how the first humans fell from a purely spiritual state through
74 10.19 (Marcovich 399).

75 Adv. haer. 1.27.2 (my trans.); SC 264:350; cf. Phil. 2:7-8. Also, see Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 3.10.2;
5.14.1, and 5.20.3. Lieu, Marcion, 263 and 377-78, analyzes these passages and concludes,
To describe Marcions views as docetic on this basis is unhelpful, especially if it suggests
his allegiance to an existing coherent doctrine about the nature of Christs body or about
his mode of presence in the human sphere (378).
76 Ref. 10.19 (Marcovich 399; = 10.15 in ANF 5:146).
77 Also adding to the confusion is how Apelless teachings relate to Marcions (cf.
Ref. 10.20)discussed further below.
78 The same is true of Ref. 10.16.
79 Strom. 3.3.12, 3.3.18, and 3.3.22.
80 3.4.25.
81 3.17.102.

16 Wilhite
the lustful act of sex and so no longer had a purely spiritual nor purely hylic
body, but a psychic one. Therefore, Clements concern with procreation is
as much to counter encratism,82 with docetism only present as a rhetorical
reductio ad absurdum. It should be remembered that Clement deems anyone
who denies procreation a docetist,83 and so this statement does not address
whether or not Marcions Christ was a phantasm. Second, Clement, who relies
on Irenaeus,84 may have misappropriated Irenaeus statement about these
people who deny Christs flesh (see above). In any case, Clements one ref-
erence to Marcions docetism is most naturally read as an inference deduced
from Marcions denial of Christs birth.
A similar dependence on Irenaeus occurs in the anonymous author
(Pseudo-Tertullian) of the Adversus omnes haereses (6.1), who asserts that
Cerdo taught a docetic and a passionless Christ. In the very next paragraph (6.2)
the same author simply says that Marcions teachings were identical to his
teacher, Cerdowithout mentioning docetism specifically.85
At this point, we would normally review Tertullians understanding of
Marcion. He, however, will be considered as special case in the next section.
Instead, we will turn to two later third century writers to see how others like
Tertullian could and did interpret their second century sources on Marcion.
Toward the end of his career, Cyprian of Carthage answered a certain bish-
ops question about baptizing heretics. Marcionites serve as an exempla nega-
tiva for Cyprian:
But surely Marcion does not hold this Trinity? Surely he does not confess
the same God the Father and Creator as we do? Does he recognize the
same Christ His Son, born of the Virgin Mary, the Word which was made
flesh, who bore our sins, who by dying overcame death, who initiated
the resurrection of the flesh, beginning with His own person, and who
revealed to His disciples that He had risen again in the same flesh?86
Docetic Christology, it must be insisted, is nowhere in view in Cyprians let-

ter. The phrase from John 1:14 (qui sermo caro factus sit) is not repudiating
docetism, but is part of Cyprians regula fideithe whole of which Marcion
82 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.7.6.

83 Strom. 3.17.102, cited above.
84 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.13.9.
85 Ps.-Tertullian also adds the previously unknown story of Marcion raping a virgin.
86 Ep. 73.5.2 (G.W. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage [ACW 47; NY: Newman Press,
1989], 4:57; G.F. Diercks, CCL 3C:535).

denies by way of his theological dualism and his view of a spiritual body in the
resurrection.87 The differences are then theological dualism, and a Christology
sans virgin birth and sans resurrection of Christs material body. This is espe-
cially remarkable since Cyprian is normally dependent on Tertullian, who as
will be shown repeatedly accused Marcion of docetism. On two other occa-
sions Cyprian discusses Marcions heresy, only mentioning Marcions rejection
of the Creator-God, never alluding to docetism.88 Does Cyprian have first hand
knowledge of Marcions incarnational Christology, knowledge which prohibits
him from charging Marcion with docetism? Since Cyprian likely received the
same rhetorical schooling as Tertullian and utilized the same second-century
sources, he likely would have recognized Tertullians charge of docetism for
what it is, a rhetorical deployment of reductio ad absurdum.
The same pattern emerges in Origens comments on Marcion. Twice in De
principiis and three times Contra Celsum Origen explicitly discusses Marcions
heresy.89 In every instance the issue is Marcions rejection of the Old Testament
God. At no time is Marcion described as a docetist or as teaching some less
than incarnate Christology.90 Like Cyprian and other earlier writers (includ-
ing in their clearer statements, Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria), Origen
only knows Marcions heresy to be that of theological dualism.
87 Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian, 4:226, comments on this passage, Cyprian has delib-
erately chosen descriptive phrases and clauses to highlight Marcionite divergences in
doctrine on the Godhead and the scheme for redemption. Thus Deum patrem creatorem:
by contrast, for Marcion, God the Creator of the world was not the Father of Christ; he
was Marcions second god, the god of the O.T., of the Jews, the law, and the prophets.
Thus, too, filium Chirstum de virgine Maria natum...qui resurrectionem carnis...primus
initiavit: for Marcion, Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary but was a bodily manifesta-
tion of Marcions first god, the supreme god of love. And in the Marcionite scheme of
things redemption was limited to the soul, whereas the flesh was destined for destruction
and did not partake of salvation (see e.g., Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.27.1ff. SC 264.348ff.).
88 Ep. 73.2.4, Marcion is merely said to outdo all others in blaspheming against God the
Father, the creator [in Deum patrem creatorem blasphemare] (Clarke 4:71). Ep. 75.5.1,
Marcion...introduced his sacrilegious doctrines against God... (Clarke 4:81).
89 De princ. 2.7.1, on Marcion and Valentinus denying the oneness of God. De princ. 2.9.5,
on Marcion and Valentinus denying the goodness of the Creator God. C. Cels. 1.27, on
Marcion and Valentinus altering the scriptures. C. Cels. 5.54 and 6.74, on Marcions rejec-
tion of the Old Testament God.
90 See D.H. Williams, Harnack, Marcion and the Arguments of Antiquity, in Hellenization
Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World (ed. W.E. Helleman;
Lanha, MD: 1994), 233, on how Origen had to differentiate Christianity from Marcionism
because Celsus was attacking the latter under the name of the former.

18 Wilhite
One final source needs to be mentioned, even if space does not permit a full
treatment. The later sources from the fourth century and beyond are gener-
ally considered to have little to no firsthand knowledge of Marcions teachings.
One exception is Epiphanius of Salamis, who in his Panarion treats Marcion
extensively and interacts with Marcionite texts. Whereas Epiphanius mentions
nothing of docetism in his introduction of Marcionism (42.1.1-42.8.5), he does
discuss (42.8.6) how Christ became incarnate and endured suffering, but this
is not explicitly stated to be something Marcion denied. It is only an alterna-
tive reading of Eph. 5:16 in order to show that Christ, and not an evil Demiurge,
redeemed us from sin. Next, Epiphanius reports that Marcion altered Luke:
This man has only Luke as a Gospel, mutilated at the beginning because of
the Saviors conception and his incarnation.91 Epiphanius claim that Marcion
denied the incarnation is only made via Marcions rejection of the birth narra-
tive (and thereby Christs nativity). In a refutatio statement Epiphanius avers,
...I can show with Gods help that Marcion is a fraud and in error, and can
refute him effectively. For he will be refuted from the very works which
he acknowledges without dispute. From the very remnants of the Gospel
and Epistles which he still has, it will be demonstrated to the wise that
Christ is not foreign to the Old Testament, and hence that the prophets
are not foreign to the Lords adventand that the apostle preaches the
resurrection of the flesh and terms the prophets righteous...92
If these three tenets of the faith are in need of defense, it seems that a fourth
(incarnation) is not something Marcion denies in Epiphanius sources. In
introducing his earlier work, (which he reproduces in 42.11.1ff.), Epiphanius
adds, In turn, other sayings from the same books give intimation that Christ
has come in the flesh and been made perfect man among us.93 The heresy is
found in that Marcions Christ is not perfect man or fully human. Finally, after
a pain-staking line by line account of Marcions scriptures, Epiphaniuslike
Tertullian before him (see below)misses no opportunity to deride Marcion
for teaching docetism but leaving incarnational elements in his texts. After this
exegesis of Marcions inconsistent Euangelion, Epiphanius concludes the sec-
tion on Marcion the way he started it: by only mentioning Marcions theologi-
cal dualism and the scriptural errors that result. No mention is made in these
91
Pan. 42.9.1 (trans. F. Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books 1 (Sects 1-46)
[Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2009], 302).
92
Pan. 42.9.5-7 (Williams 302).
93
Pan. 42.10.6 (Williams 303).

concluding paragraphs (42.13.1-42.16.14) of docetism. It seems that Epiphanius

sources (utilized in his introductory and concluding sections about Marcion)
mention nothing of docetism; only in what is now a predictable response to
Marcions alleged editing of the scriptures, Epiphanius slanders Marcion as an
inconsistent docetist who left traces of incarnation in his Euangelion.
With the second century sources providing no evidence for Marcions doce-
tism, and with other later writers providing only conflicting and unreliable
reports, we can now look to Tertullians extensive reading of Marcion to see
his argument.
Tertullians Argument Against Marcion
Tertullian has Marcions Euangelion and Apostolikon before him, but schol-
ars still debate whether or not his was an original Greek copy, or a later Latin
translation.94 Tertullians reading of these texts, moreover, is often so polemical
that scholars cannot derive conclusions about specific points with any degree
of certainty.95 For example, Tertullian accuses Marcion of falsifying the original
versions of Luke and Pauls lettersediting with a sword instead of a stylus.96
Today, however, this claim has been called into question.97 Often, Marcion
94 A.J.. Higgins, The Latin Text of Luke in Marcion and Tertullian, VC 5 (1951), 1-42, is
generally not followed by more recent scholars who think Tertullian to have provided his
own translation of Marcions texts. See bibliography in Lieu, Marcion and the Synoptic
Problem, in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 733 n. 6.
95 See D.S. Williams, Reconsidering Marcions Gospel, JBL 108 (1989), 477-96. Lieu, Marcion
and the Synoptic Problem, 735, dismisses Williams criteria for reconstructing Marcions
text (i.e. Tertullian and Epiphanius must agree) because it is too niggardly an approach,
yielding little of substantive value. A comprehensive study has now been produced in
D.T. Roth, The Text of Marcions Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 2015).
96 De praescriptione haereticorum 38.9 (trans. mine).
97 For early modern scholars, see Roth, The Text of Marcions Gospel, 7-28. Knox, Marcion
and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1942), 50-51, insists that most of Marcions omissions were in fact the
more primitive readings of Pauls letters. For recent discussion of this issue, see U. Schmid,
Marcion und sein Apostolos: Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcion-
itischen Paulusbriefausgabe (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995); G. Quispel, Marcion and the Text of
the New Testament, VC 52 (1998), 349-60; E.-M. Becker, Marcion und die Korintherbriefe
nach Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V, in Marcion und seine kirchengeschichtliche
Wirkung/Marcion and his Impact on Church History, ed. G. May and K. Greschat (TU 150;
Berlin, 2002), 95-109; J. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press, 2006); M. Klinghardt, Markion vs. Lukas: Pldoyer fr

20 Wilhite
is accused of deleting passages from Luke that were never in Luke.98 In

short, Tertullians claims about Marcion must always be taken with a grain of
critical salt.99
die Wiederaufnahme eines alten Falles, NTS 52 (2006), 213-32; Klinghardt, Gesetz bei
Markion und Lukas, in M. Konradt and D. Snger (eds.), Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament
und im Frhen Christentum (NTOA 57; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 102-03;
and Klinghardt, The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion,
NT 50 (2008), 1-27; C.M. Hayes, M. vs. the Pldoyer of Matthias Klinghardt, ZNW 99
(2008), 213-32; and Roth, Marcions Gospel and Luke: The History of Research in Current
Debate, JBL 3 (2008), 513-27; and Lieu, Marcion, 183-269.
98 Cf. 4.7.4; 4.9.15; 4.21; 4.29; 5.14.14. Tertullians statements about editing and deleting,
therefore, must be understood as omissions in Marcions theology, not scribal erasure in
Marcions text. Still at other times, Tertullian is so convinced that Marcion has deleted
parts of Luke that he is baffled when Marcion does not delete material contradictory to
(Tertullians understanding of) his teachings: Now here Marcion, on purpose I believe,
has abstained from crossing out of his gospel certain matters opposed to him, hoping that
in view of these which he might have crossed out and has not, he may be thought not to
have crossed out those which he has crossed out, or even to have crossed them out with
good reason (Adv. Marc. 4.43.7 [Evans 507; cf. Moreschini and Braun SC 456:524]). For an
alternate explanation, see Roth, Matthean Texts and Tertullians Accusations in Adversus
Marcionem, JTS 59 (2008), 580-97.
99 A. Orbe, Cristologa Gnstica: Introduccin a la soteriologa de los siglos II y III (Madrid:
Biblioteca de Autores Christianos, 1976), 272, Las alusiones tertulianeas a una pasin fan-
tasmal, sin sufrimento ni dolor verdadero, vienen en segundo lugar por abuso de retrica.
A telling example is when Tertullian responds, And now he [Paul] cries aloud, O the depth
of the riches and wisdom of God!...and his ways past finding out! Whence that outburst?
Out of his recollection of those scriptures to which he had already referred: out of his
meditation upon those types and figures which he had previously expounded as bearing
on the faith of Christ which was to emerge from the law. If Marcion has of set purpose cut
out these passages what is this exclamation his apostle makes when he has no riches of
his god to look upon (Adv. Marc. 5.14.9 [Evans 600-3; Moreschini and Braun SC 483:280];
ref. Rom. 11:33 and then 11:26-27). But has Marcion really deleted these passages from
Romans? (see 5.14.6). In fact, does Tertullian even claim Marcion cut these out? Or, did
he assume that Marcion would (i.e. the indicative conditional sentence), since they are
obvious quotes from Jewish scripture? In fact, after a few more comments on Marcions
error, Tertullian mocks Marcion for not cutting out passages from Isaiah in the next verse:
When you took away so much from the scriptures, why did you retain this, as though
this too were not the Creators? (Adv. Marc. 5.14.10 [Evans 603; Moreschini and Braun
SC 483:282]; ref. Rom 11:34 and Isa 40:13). This dizzying display of double-speak illus-
trates the kind of argument Tertullian makes: he is not recording accurate citations; he is
persuading through what he sees to be logical inconsistencies in Marcions thinking. In
doing so, sometimes Tertullian attacks Marcion from one side (editing), and sometimes

Nowhere is this more apparent than with Marcions docetism,100 for

Tertullian has little to no firsthand knowledge of Marcion or Marcionites.101
In addition to Marcions new testament, Tertullian also has the heretics
Antitheses. However, even here Tertullians citations of this work only allow
scholars to reconstruct stark contrasting quotes between Old Testament and
New Testament verses.102 Finally, Tertullian claims that Marcion h imself
from the other (not editing). In neither attack can we accept Tertullians statement at
face value.
100 E.g. in 4.8 Tertullian defends Christs material flesh against the notion that Christ was a
phantasma. This defense, however, is in response to an imagined Marcionite interpre-
tation of Luke 4:29-30. Tertullian nowhere states that he has record of Marcion actu-
ally claiming this text be read in a docetic way, yet he must conjecture, as evident by
phrases such as Evidently here too the Marcionites suppose [Plane...putant et hic
Marcionitae]... (5.20.3 [Evans 636-7; Moreschini and Braun SC 483:364). Cf. 4.9; 4.18; 4.20;
4.40; 4.42-3; 5.7-8; 5.14.
101 It is noteworthy that Epiphanius (Pan. 42.1.2) does not list Africa as among the prov-
inces where Marcionites can be found. While it is commonly assumed Marcionites
were in Carthage because Tertullian wrote against the heresy, I can find no reference in
Tertullian or elsewhere that suggests there was a Marcionite presence in North Africa.
The often mentioned scriptures of the Scillitan martyrs are not Marcionite scriptures. In
the late fourth century, Optatus of Milevis, Contr. Parm. 1.9, argued that Marcionites were
unknown in Africa. Cf. Augustine, Ep. 118.2.12. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian, 4:222-23,
asserts, From our information the two most formidable heretical movements in N. Africa
had been those of Marcion and Montanus; they are most likely to have been the major
source for this copious supply of converts. I think Clarke has assumed there was an actual
presence of Marcionites (and Montanists) in North Africa, even though he admits that
Jubianus, the recipient of this letter, is of unknown province (p. 221). The rhetorical point,
however, that Cyprian is trying to make is that his party would not accept Marcionite bap-
tism (which no one would dispute, if they even had the chance), so it should not accept
the baptism of Novatian et al.
102 See Lhr, Markion, 152-55; and further discussion in Eric W. Scherbenske, Marcions
Antitheses and the Isagogic Genre, VC 64 (2010), 255-279. Although statements like that
found in Adv. Marc. 3.3.3 (...the same miracles which are the only evidence you lay claim
to for belief in your Christ [quas solas ad fidem Christo tuo vindicas]; Evans 174-5) may
imply that Tertullian has firsthand knowledge of Marcions teachings from his Antitheses,
the numerous conditional clauses of the paragraph leaves the matter ambiguous at best.
Moreover, when Tertullian reports what the Antitheses consisted of (Adv. Marc. 1.19), he
nowhere explicitly claims that he has a copy of Marcions work. The one possible instance
where Tertullian makes such as claim (Adv. Marc. 4.9.7) would indicate that the Antitheses
is a commentary. Adolf von Harnack (Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God, trans.
J.E. Steely and L.D. Bierma [Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1990], 54) uses this passage as the
basis of his understanding of Marcions original document. Harnacks u nderstanding,

22 Wilhite
retracted his heretical teachings at the end of his lifea point which
Marcionites certainly would not have conceded.103 Tertullian claims that he
has a copy of Marcions letter in which the heretic confessed that he origi-
nally held to orthodox beliefs before falling into errorthe validity of the
letter is said by Tertullian to be rejected by Marcionites.104 Despite any ques-
tions about this letters authenticity, it is noteworthy that in reference to this
letter Tertullian mentions nothing about Marcions docetism.105 Therefore,
this source (for even if it is a forgery it remains an earlier source for Tertullian
about Marcions teachings), as with all of Tertullians sources for Marcion, pro-
vides no credible evidence about Marcions docetism.
With such sparse information, Tertullian is often left to guess as to what
Marcion would say on a certain matter. His guesses, while often theologi-
cally insightful, are historically unreliable. Regarding Tertullians Adversus
Marcionem, Judith Lieu has recently concluded, It is possible that Tertullian
had been involved in oral disputes with Marcionites, and there may be traces of
such in his polemic. However, his regular adoption of direct address, you say,
owes most to the rhetorical conventions of diatribe;...106 The conclusions
drawn from Tertullian, then, need to be corroborated by additional sources,
especially when one finds Tertullian inconsistent on a certain matter, such as
Marcions docetism.
Tertullians claims about Marcion are best understood in the larger con-
text of his full attack on Marcions teachings. Tertullians primary contention
with Marcion is theological dualism. At the beginning of Adversus Marcionem,
Tertullian unabashedly declares, The principal, and consequently the entire,
matter of discussion is one of number, whether it is permissible to suggest the
existence of two gods.107 This statement coheres with what is said of Marcions
heresy in the earlier sources. Once theological dualism is understood to be
however, has been questioned (see S. Moll, The Arch-Heretic Marcion [WUNT 250;
Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 107-11). See the recent discussion of Lieu, Marcion, 272-88.
103 Praescr. 30.3.
104 Tertullian claims on numerous occasions (Adv. Marc. 1.1.6; 4.4.3; De carn. Christ. 2.4) that
he has a letter from Marcion, which was written before he began teaching heresy which
proves that Marcion once held to Orthodox beliefs. Marcions followers, however, dis-
pute the authenticity of this letter, and so Tertullian agrees that it does not constitute
juridical evidence (Adv. Marc. 4.4.3-4).
105 In De carn. Christ. 2.4 Tertullian only states that Marcion denied Christs birth (not his
incarnation).
106 Lieu, Marcion, 54.
107 Adv. Marc. 1.3.1 (Evans 9; Braun SC 456:110: Principalis itaque et exinde tota congressio de
numero, an duos deos liceat induci).

Tertullians principle concern (pun intended, to be sure) with Marcion, then

Tertullians other accusations can be seen in their proper light.
When debating Marcions claim that Christ was a different deity from the
Demiurge, Tertullian finds this to be logically inconsistent: Why was [Christ]
so intent upon providing evidence of himself by being put on display in the dis-
honour of flesha dishonour even greater if that flesh was no true flesh? For
it adds to the disgrace if he made the substance of his body into a lieand he
even took upon himself the Creators curse by being hung from a tree.108 The
assumption is that Marcion believed Christ, although previously unknown,
was revealed, and he was revealed in the fleshflesh which suffered on the
cross. Tertullian now has his Pontic Mouse (Adv. Marc. 1.1.5) in a rhetorical
rat trap: on the one hand, if Christ was revealed in and suffered in the flesh,
Christs chosen self-revelation unavoidably validates the Creators handiwork;
on the other hand, if Christ was not revealed in the flesh, then Christ is dis-
honest, because the Gospel (even Marcions Euangelion) portrays Christ as
enfleshed and passible.109 Once catching Marcion in this logical predicament,
Tertullian will proceed to hurl the alternative accusations of inconsistency and
docetism at him throughout the rest of his work.110 Tertullians aim, however, is
to keep Marcion between these two points: knowing that Marcion would not
be comfortable acknowledging that Christs flesh was from the Creator-God
108 Adv. Marc. 1.11.8 (Evans 31; Braun SC 456:152).

109 For full discussion, see C. Radler, The Dirty Physician: Necessary Dishonor and Fleshly
Solidarity in Tertullians Writings, VC 63 (2009), 345-68, esp. 357, According to Tertullian,
Marcion necessarily denies the physical body of Christ since that would closely connect
Christ to the devious creator God and since flesh is withdrawn from the possibility of
salvation. Marcions flesh-less Christ renders him an apparition and, hence, a liar and a
charlatan. This deceptive phantasm would be unable to offer anything real and true in
terms of healing. Radler accepts Marcion as a docetist, but it is telling that all of Radlers
examples of Tertullians dispute with Marcion (363-4) have to do with Christs birth (not
his incarnation). See more on the need to differentiate birth from incarnation below.
110 E.g. Adv. Marc. 3.8.1, where Christ as a phantasm was borrowed from the opponents of
John (cf. 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7) who themselves were Marcionitesthat is, in
Tetullitans rhetoric, for this is impossible in Tertullians chronology. In addition, the
extended argument of Adv. Marc. 3.8-3.11 (cf. 1.14 and 5.8) consists of Tertullians repeated
claim that the Creator is responsible for the flesh and therefore Marcions Christ should
be ashamed to be associated with the flesh. Tertullians argument unwittingly admits
that Marcions Christ was in the flesh, only Tertullian then assumes (by reductio ad absur-
dum) that this is merely a phantasm. Noting these passages, Lieu, Marcion, 82, states,
What particularly perplexes Tertullian is that according to Marcion Christ did die on the
cross...he only denied that this fulfilled any earlier prophecy.

24 Wilhite
of the Old Testament, nor did he teach that Christ was a docetist for Marcion
clearly preaches Christ, and him crucified.111
While Tertullians polemic is brilliant in its argumentation, the historian
should not confuse Tertullians rhetoric with Marcions teachings. Tertullian
knows that Marcion himself never denies the incarnation. A few sentences
later, Tertullian will drop the second part of the dilemma (that Christ only
appeared to have flesh), and simply press Marcion on the logical inconsistency
of Christs incarnation into the Demiurges matter, which implies Marcion did
affirm incarnate corporality. Tertullian describes Marcions portrayal of his alien
God as including a Christ for whose sake in this the Creators prison-house
[i.e. the cosmos and/or the flesh] he was even crucified.112 In other words,
Tertullian admits Marcion affirmed the crucifixion, the suffering of Christs
true (not feigned) flesh.113 Tertullian makes the same claim multiple times. For
example, he states, God was found to be small, so that man might become
very great. As you despise a God of that sort I wonder if you do honestly believe
that God was crucified.114 In other words, Marcion did honestly believe that
God was crucified and Tertullian acknowledges that he did. Tertullian simply
finds Marcions view of incarnation to be inadequate and inconsistent.115
111 1 Cor. 2:2 is discussed in Adv. Marc. 5.6. No mention is made of Marcions deletion of this
verse, and Tertullian assumes in this chapter that Marcions Christ was crucified (by the
princes of this world; ref. 1 Cor 2:6). The chapter is devoted to arguing for the absurdity of
theological dualism, given Pauls statement in 1 Cor 2:1 (and echoes of Pauls statements
going through 1 Cor 3).
113 Orbe, Christologa Gnstica, 2:273. See, for example, Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.26.1, where
he attacks Marcionite interpretation of the transfiguration as a rejection of the Old
Testament. In doing so, Tertullian unwittingly admits that Marcion believed Christ was
crucified: if the Creator-God could crucify Christ on Calvary, surely he could have struck
him dead on the mount of transfiguration. For this logic to work, Marcion would have to
have taught that Christ was crucified (not just in appearance).
115 Late in his first book, Tertullian calls Marcions god a phantasma (1.22.1 [Braun SC 365:200]),
and then begins an argument about this gods alleged goodness. At the end of book one
Tertullian summarizes his argument, At present it is enough to have shown their god
to be thoroughly inconsistent (1.26.1 [Evans 73; Braun SC 365:226]), concluding with
a mocking of Marcions god who does not judge but only pretends to do so. Herein,
Tertullian provides the explanation as to how Marcions god is a phantasm: Here you
will find the ghost of goodness, discipline itself a phantasm, casual precepts, offences
free from fear (1.27.1 [Evans 75; Braun SC 365:230]). The word does not appear again in
book two. At the end of book three Marcions entire promise of salvation and future glory
is decried: What a phantasm it all is! (3.24.13 [Evans 253; Braun SC 399:214]). Similarly,

Tertullian knew that Marcion never rejected the crucifixion nor the incar-
nation that had to precede it, but Tertullian argued that Marcions view of the
incarnation was inadequate. Marcions Christ simply descended [/
descendit] at Capernaum, for Marcions Euangelion contained no story of Jesus
birth.116 Marcions opponents who held to the regula fidei found this to fall short
of the true faith. To deny the virgin birth is to deny the i ncarnation.117 Or so it
would seem. It must be admitted that Tertullians argument is in fact a non sequi-
tur: in terms of pure analytic speculation, it is possible that Christ could have
become incarnate through other means, such as metamorphosis. While it may
be theologically important to note that a confession of Christs body derived
via transmutation renders Christ not fully human in the Chalcedonian sense,
I doubt Marcion is sufficiently sophisticated, nor prescient, in his thinking to
account for this. Tertullian polemically challenges Marcion with allusions to
Zeus incarnation as a Swan and Romulus translation to divinity, and many
scholars want to see Apelles understanding of Christ as having heavenly flesh
like the Old Testament angels.118 I would simply contend that if Zeus as a swan
was tangible enough to rape, and if the angels in Sodom were tangible enough
to be raped, then it is plausible to assume that Marcions Christ was material and
in book four Marcions teachings are in their entirety dubbed phantasmata (4.10.15 [Evans
302; Moreschini and Braun SC 456:140]). The argument flows from a claim that Marcion
implicitly teaches docetism to a mock of Marcions explicit dualism. Only the latter is
historically credible, while the former is polemically constructed.
116 Cf. Luke 4:31 (trans. mine; NA27/Vulg.); ref. in Adv. Marc. 4.7.1 (Moreschini and Braun
SC 456:92: descendisse).
117 Cf. Adv. Marc. 3.11. It is worth noting that Tertullian does not go so far as to claim that
Christ could not be incarnate without being born. He merely stipulates that it is a natu-
ral deduction about Marcions teaching from his denial of Christs birth. For the alterna-
tive means of an incarnation as valid (but not historically actualized), see Anselm, Cur
Deus Homo 2.18; and O. Crisp, God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (Edinburgh:
Continuum, 2009), 77-102.
118 De carn. Christ. 4.7, and yet, the professors of this worlds wisdom find it easier to believe
that Jupiter became a bull or a swan than Marcion finds it to believe that Christ verita-
bly became man (et tamen apud illam facilius creditur Iuppiter taurus factus aut cygnus,
quam vere homo Christus penes Marcionem [Evans 16-7; Mah SC 216:226]; cf. Seneca,
Phaedra 296-99). Similarly, Tertullian discusses Romulus translation to divinity in
Adv. Marc. 4.7.3 (cf. Livy 1.16). While these images are Tertulliansnot Marcions, they
illustrate the range of understandings of incarnation available to Marcion. As for the
OT angels as examples, see De carn. Christ. 6 and Adv. Marc. 3.9; and discussion in Brox,
Doketismus, 314; and Riparelli, Il volto del Christo dualista, 61.

26 Wilhite
passible.119 Marcion would not see flesh that suffers, bleeds, and dies as feigned
or phantasmal flesh. What is more, Tertullian admits that he does not know
Marcions explanation of Christs descent to earth; instead, all he has as evidence
is Marcions Euangelion which asserts such a descent: admitting that he came
down, I demand to know the rest of the order of that descent. It is no matter if
somewhere the word appeared is used.120 Tertullian, therefore, has no expla-
nation from Marcion or any source why Marcions Christ simply descended at
Capernaum nor how Marcion viewed Christs body. He simply offers his own
explanation: Marcion must have been a docetist.
Tertullian also sniffed docetism in the air of Marcions teachings about
Christs resurrection.121 Christs Easter body was not material but a spiritual
body as will be the bodies of all Christians in their resurrection (ref. 1 Cor. 15:44).
Since Marcion explicitly taught something akin to a docetic risen Christ,
Tertullian concludes that Marcion implicitly must have taught a docetic cru-
cified Christ. Yet once again, we must acknowledge that such an argument
is a non sequitur: one could hold to a material body in life and to a spiritual
body in the afterlifewitness most of the Graeco-Roman world, including
perhaps Paul.
Another item that discredits Tertullians statements in Adversus Marcionem
as evidence of Marcions docetism is that in his earlier works Tertullian
nowhere mentions Marcions docetism. In De praescriptione haereticorum,
Tertullian only maintains that Marcion taught theological dualism (7.3; 30.9;
34.3) and denied Christs material body in the resurrection (33.4).122 In his
De carne Christi, written between drafts of Adversus Marcionem,123 Tertullian
119 Tertullian later admits that Marcions Euangelion also depicts Christ being seized by
the crowd, which is said to be another example of Marcions inconsistent editing (Adv.
Marc. 4.8.2; ref. Luke 4:29). It is more plausible that Marcion affirmed Christs tangibility.
120 De carn. Christ. 4.7.2: reliquum ordinem descensionis expostulo, tenens descendisse illum.
Viderit enim sicubi apparuisse positum est (Evans 277; Moreschini and Braun SC 456:92).
121 Praescr. 33.4; Adv. Marc. 3.8.7; cf. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.27.3.
122 In Praescr. 33.11, it appears that 1 John 4:3 is directed at Marcion. This passage is
obscure in two ways: (1) it could refer to Marcions denial of material flesh post-
mortem; and (2) interestingly, it could just as easily be aimed at Hebion in this sen-
tence, for the Ebionites are said to hold to a possessionistic form of docetism (cf. Irenaeus,
Adv. haer. 1.26.2; Tertullian, De carn. Christ. 14; Hippolytus, Ref. 7.34; Epiphanius, Pan.
30.14.5; 30.16.4-5). It is Marcion, after all, who refused to think that Jesus was the Son of
God the creator.
123 Braun, Contre Marcion, 1:40. For discussion of the full chronology of Tertullians
works, see Braun, Deus Christianorum, rev. ed., (Paris: tudes augustiniennes, 1977),
567-77; J.-C. Fredouille, Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique (Paris: tudes

has shifted to argue, Marcion, with the purpose of denying Christs flesh, also
denied his nativity: or else, with intent to deny his nativity, denied his flesh.124
This statement appears to imply firm knowledge of Marcions Christology;
but on closer inspection Tertullian is waffling on which aspect of orthodox
Christology Marcion denied (Christs nativity or Christs incarnation). In
regards to this passage, there are three reasons why it cannot be credible evi-
dence of Marcions docetism.
(1) Tertullian confesses that he does not know which is the motivation for
Marciondenial of the incarnation or denial of the nativity. Since Tertullians
other two interlocutors in this treatise (Apelles and Valentinus) both deny
Christs true human flesh, Tertullian need not press the details of Marcions
denial. For him it is Marcions explicit denial of Christs birth that unavoidably
implies a denial of Christs incarnation. Tertullians (in)famous description of
birth graphically depicts what he thinks must have been repugnant to Marcion:
Beginning then with that nativity you so strongly object to, orate, attack
now, the nastinesses of genital elements in the womb, the filthy cur-
dling of moisture and blood,and of the flesh to be for nine months nour-
ished on that same mire. Draw a picture of the womb getting daily more
unmanageable, heavy, self-concerned, safe not even in sleep, uncertain
in the whims of dislikes and appetites. Next go all out against the mod-
esty of the travailing woman, a modesty which at least because of danger
ought to be respected and because of its nature is sacred. You shudder,
of course, at the child passed out along with his afterbirth, and of course
bedaubed with it. You think it shameful that he is straightened out with
bandages, that he is licked into shape with applications of oil, that he is
beguiled by coddling.125
Tertullians ability to set the scene in such graphically unforgettable form is

compelling a priori. To Marcions credit, however, these are not his words.126
augustiniennes, 1972), 487-8; and T.D. Barnes, Tertullian: An Historical and Literary Study
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 30-56, and idem, Postscript, in Tertullian, rev. ed.
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985).
124 De carn. Christ. 1.2 (Evans 5; Mah SC 216:211).
125 De carn. Christ. 4.1-2 (Evans 13; cf. Mah SC 216:220-22).
126 As is true of his later statement in Adv. Marc. 3.10.1, where you people keep on saying
[dicitis] how the flesh [carnis] is contemptible because it is packed with dung [stercori-
bus infersam] (Evans 199; Braun SC 399:106). This is not Marcion, but later Marcionites
who teach some form of docetism (probably Valentinians, see the discussion of De carn.
Christ. below).

28 Wilhite
Tertullian depicts Marcion as hating the flesh and its birth since Marcion
denies the birth of Christs flesh. Let us take note: Tertullian has unwittingly
admitted what he earlier (De carn. Chr. 1) claimed not to know: Marcion denies
Christs birth. That Marcion denies Christs flesh is no longer even in Tertullians
purview for the current argument.
(2) The second reason this passage is not credible evidence for Marcions
docetism is that Marcion himself is not in Tertullians purview: Marcion is
merely a foil for a Valentinan-leaning audience.127 Tertullian outlines the esca-
lating docetism in Marcion (for whom it is only implicit), Apelles (who attempts
to give Christ heavenly flesh like the angels), and Valentinus (who simply
gives Christ spiritual flesh). Robert Sider explains Tertullians rhetorical
strategy in this work as offering an extended narratio for Marcion, a very brief
narratio for Apelles, but only a statement of the view to be attacked for the
third group. He then concludes, The effect is to diminish, at the exactly
appropriate point, the sharp distinction between the individual heresies,
and to leave in the reader the unity of perspective he had hoped to achieve.128
In other words, in De carne Christi Marcion is the first of three enemies (cf.
Apelles, Valentinus), but it is clear that this is meant to shame the audience,
who are not Marcionites, but closer to Valentinus. Deeming a certain teaching
Marcionite is to condemn ittrouble not with the details of whether Marcion
himself ever taught said doctrine.
(3) The third and most crucial reason for rejecting Tertullians claim in
De carne Christi that Marcion was a docetist is in Tertullians own statement in
De carne Christi to the contrary. Tertullian betrays the fact that he knows
Marcion believes in the real suffering and crucifixion of Christ:
Excise this also, Marcionor rather, this for preference. For which is
more beneath Gods dignity, more a matter of shame, to be born or to die,
to carry about a body or a cross, to be circumcised or to be crucified, to be
fed at the breast or to be buried, to be laid in a manger or to be entombed
in a sepulchre? You will be the wiser if you refuse to believe these either.129
In his 2007 article Geoffrey Dunn commented on this passage to say, If

Marcion accepted that Christ truly died, which he did (and this is the important
thing to keep in mind when reading this chapter because it is the unmentioned
127 As I have argued elsewhere in D.E. Wilhite, Rhetoric and Theology in Tertullian: What
Tertullian Learned from Paul, SP 65 (2013), 295-312.
128 R. Sider, Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (Oxford, 1971), 28.

premise upon which the argument is built...), then logically it must follow
that Christ had flesh.130
Dunns point can be further demonstrated by looking to the whole pas-
sage in De carne Christi where Tertullian unwittingly testifies to the fact that
Marcions Christ suffers bodily. Tertullian asks, Or was your reason for not
tearing out of your scriptures the sufferings of Christ [passiones a Christo] that
as a phantasm he was free from the perception of them?131 After this state-
ment Tertullian proceeds to argue how much worse it is for Marcions God
to be crucified than born, which is to admit that Marcions Christ does
still suffer. Later in this paragraph, Marcions Christ is said to be without
bones...without muscles...without blood...without appetite...without
teeth...without a tongue and so merely a phantasm...a phantasm even
after the resurrection.132 This claim is now clearly a reductio ad absurdum
from Marcions denial of the nativity, for Tertullian admits that Marcions
Christ even after the resurrection has hands, feet and bones which a spirit
has not but flesh has [manus et pedes et ossa quae spiritus non habet, sed caro]
(5.10), citing Marcions Euangelion which still retains Luke 24:39. Tertullian
next transitions to Marcions student, Apelles, who differed from his teacher
by saying Christs flesh [carnem] was made from the stars [de sideribus].133
Before explaining this distinction between Apelles and his teacher, Tertullian
claims that Marcions disciples (pl.) admit to Christs incarnation: We will
admit, they say, that he had flesh, provided it was in no sense born.134 Those
in view are likely Apelles and especially the Valentinians;135 Tertullian has no
direct information about Marcion other than the fact that later Marcionites
and Marcions own Euangelion all affirm Christs suffering in the flesh.
In short, Tertullian concedes, when it suits his argument, that Marcion
nowhere denied Christs flesh nor his passion and death, while at other times,
Tertullian deduces that Marcions Christ was a phantasm since Marcions
130 G.D. Dunn, Marys Virginity in partu and Tertullians Anti-Docetism in De Carne Christi
Reconsidered, JTS 58 (2007), 467-84, quote from 472 (emph. added), with ref. to De carn.
Christ. 5.1-3 and Adv. Marc. 3.18-9. Dunn notes that Tertullians argument here is against
Marcions inconsistency, for Marcion nowhere denied that Christ died on the cross.
132 De carn. Christ. 5.9: sine ossibus...sine musculis...sine sanguine...sine fame...sine
dentibus...sine lingua...phantasma...phantasma etiam post resurrectionem (Evans 21;
Mah SC 216:230).
134 De carn. Christ. 6.1: Habuerit, inquiunt, carnem, dum omnino non natam (Evans 21; Mah
SC 216:232).
135 See Siders analysis, cited above.

30 Wilhite
Christ was not born and this second claim aims to demonstrate Marcions
inconsistency since Marcions Christ still suffers and has a body. Therefore, in
Tertullians second-century sources and in Tertullians own early statements
against Marcion, we have a Marcion who teaches theological dualism, denies
Christs birth, but who does not deny Christs flesh which suffered and died. In
Tertullians major work Adversus Marcionem, the same pattern is detectable,
despite Tertullians rhetorical argument that Marcion must logically assume a
phantasmal flesh.
To sum up Tertullian on this matter, it is clear that Tertullian finds Marcion
denying the virgin birth and the materially resurrected body. Couple these
teachings with Marcions rejection of the Old Testament God who created flesh
in the first place, and Tertullian can easily convince the court that Marcion is
guilty of heresy, including the heresy of docetism.136 To be sure, this is a com-
pelling theological argument, but it is not an open and shut case on historical
grounds. Despite Tertullians attempt to obfuscate Marcions acceptance of a
Christ who eats, sleeps, touches and is touched, a Christ who suffers and dies
on the cross, these items survive in the records as evidence that Marcion did
assume that Christ assumed flesh. Tertullians argument is exactly that: a rhe-
torical argument, but it is not credible evidence.
Marcions Docetism in the Secondary Literature
It remains to be seen why the overwhelming consensus of scholars read the

so-called evidence of Marcions docetism as reliable. We should ask, Unde
malum? From where does the consensus of scholarship draw its assumption
that Marcion was a docetist? Due to the constraints of space, I can only offer a
brief hypothesis: Harnack.
Adolf von Harnack boldly denied that Marcion was a docetistat times. At
other times, however, Harnack, while continuing to deny Marcion was a doce-
tist per se, equivocated in order to offer a conjecture as to what kind of flesh
136 On Tertullians argument as a rhetorical imagining of the audience as judge and as
Marcion on trial, see Evans, Adversus Marcionem, 1:xvii; C.K. Rothschild, Christ the
Foolish Judge in Tertullians On the Prescription of Heretics, in Tertullian and Paul (ed.
T.D. Still and D.E. Wilhite; Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate 1; London: T&T Clark,
2013), 34-44; and S. Cooper, Magister Paulus: Altercation over the Gospel in Tertullians
Against Marcion, in Tertullian and Paul (ed. Still and Wilhite), 224-46.

Marcions Christ assumed.137 In his early work Harnack accepted Polycarps

claim that he was the first born of Satan as equivalent to a charge of being
an anti-christ.138 The heretic, then, must have denied Christs flesh (2 Jn. 1:7).
Later, however, Harnack devoted additional attention to the man from Pontus
in his later work on Marcion, finding the charge of docetism to be a complete
fabrication: Es ist also durchaus unrichtig, zu meinen, nach M. habe Christus
nur scheinbar gelitten, sei nur scheinbar gestorben usw. So urteilten die Gegner;
er selbst aber bezog hier den Schein nur auf die Fleischessubstanz.139 Yet even
after so bold a statement, on the very next page of this later work Harnack
wavers in his stance in order to explain how Marcions Christ can be deemed
a phantasm.140 Harnack insists that Marcions idea must not be understood
in the sense of a ghost; rather, Christ was like one of the Old Testament angels
who could eat and drink, but nevertheless for whom the flesh had no material
substance.141
It seems to me that Harnack has conflated, or followed Tertullian in con-
flating, the teachings of Marcion with the teachings of Apelles.142 Tertullian
137 For more on Harnacks reading of Marcion, see Williams, Harnack, Marcion and the
Arguments of Antiquity, 223-40.
138 Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius: Teil II Die Chronologie (Leipzig,
J.C. Hinrichs Verlag, 1958 [orig. 1904]), 388.
139 Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1921; rev. 1924), 124
(reprinted with Neue Studien zu Marcion [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923] in Darmstadt: Wissen
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960).
140 Ibid., 125, Verglichen mit den natrlichen Menschenleibern war der Leib Christi ein
. Cf. B. Aland, Marcion/Marcioniten, in TRE 22 (1992), 96-97, who follows
Harnack in deeming Marcions Christ to be a phantasm, while still noting the blood and
suffering of Christ; and K. Greschat, Apelles und Hermogenes: Zwei theologische Lehrer des
zweiten Jahrhunderts (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 99, follows Harnack, but later (p. 101) insists
that Marcions Christ einen echten...Leib angenommen hat.
141 Ibid., Aber wie die Engel, die zu Abraham kamen, nicht Gespenster waren, sondern
als leibhaftige und wirkliche Menschen handelten und aen, so war auch Christus kein
Gespenst, sondern der Gott trat in menschlicher Erscheinung auf und setzte sich selbst
in den Stand, wie ein Mensch zu empfinden, zu handeln und zu leiden, obgleich die
Identitt mit einem natrlich erzeugten Fleischesleib nur scheinbar war, da die Substanz
des Fleisches fehlte.
142 See Marcion, 126, for Harnacks reference to De carne Christi. It should be noted that in
De carne Christi Tertullian explicitly offers a reductio ad absurdum argument in order to
persuade his audience that Apelles and Valentinus make the same mistake as Marcion
even though he admits their teachings differ on the surface; see Wilhite Rhetoric and
Theology in Tertullian, 302-05.

32 Wilhite
imself, while happy to harmonize the two heretics in De carne Christi admits
h
in his earlier work De praescriptione haereticorum (30.5) that Apelles is no lon-
ger a Marcionite. Therefore, his teachings are at best post-Marcionistic and
cannot be reliable evidence for Marcions view of Christs flesh as phantasmal.143
As mentioned above, Marcion and Apelles may be closer than Tertullian allows,
but such a conjecture should not allow his accusation about a phantasm nor
the generic label docetism to eclipse the surviving evidence about Marcions
Christ suffering bodily. Harnack is to be credited for attempting to acknowl-
edge both aspects of Marcions Christology, but later readers of Harnack lost
his nuance.
Harnack is read by P.N. Harrison so as to allow Marcion to have been under-
stood as a docetist in the second centuryeven though Harnack cites no
second century sources that did claim Marcion was a docetist.144 Before turn-
ing to Harnack, Harrison simply states, That Marcion was a thoroughgoing
Docetist, we know.145 After reviewing the development in Harnacks thought
from his early work in regards to the letter of Polycarp, Harrison then admits
that Marcion is not a docetist in the traditional sense.146 Harrison wishes to
sidestep the question of just how docetic Marcion was, and instead he wishes
to see anti-docetic statements in Polycarp (et al.) as anti-Marcionite, which
Harnack has given him liberty to see, for Marcions opponents understand
him as teaching docetism. In short, Harrison adds nothing to this discussion,
but uses this window of opportunity for his own purposes of reading early sec-
ond century texts as anti-Marcionite.
Harrisons reading of Harnack(s reading of Marcion) is then taken up by
John Knox.147 Knox takes the baton from Harrison to develop the argument
that Polycarp and several New Testament texts were written in response to
Marcion. Interestingly, Knox is not citing Harnack at all on this point. Perhaps he
143 Riparelli, Il volto del Christo dualista, 63; Greschat, Apelles und Hermogenes, 92-109.
144 P.N. Harrison, Polycarps Two Epistle to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1936).
145 Ibid., 174.
146 Ibid., 175-6. Harrison cites Harnacks statement from the Chronologie (1904cited above),
as the definitive statement of Harnack on the matter: It is thoroughly incorrect to think
that according to Marcion Christ suffered only in appearance, etc. That was the judgment
of his opponents. He himself regarded the substance of (Christs) flesh as mere appear-
ance, but there he stopped. Of course he did not assume that the Godhead suffered. But
to conclude from this that the sufferings and death of Christ were to him a mere shadow-
show is incorrect (Harrisons trans. and emph.).
147 Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1942).

has forgotten Harnacks more nuanced view, a move which conveniently allows
him to understand how early second century Docetism, said to have been
widespread in the church, can be identified as a Marcionite phenomenon.148
In doing so, Knox relies on Harrisons misuse of Harnack. After these schol-
ars, the debate ensues along the whole range of issues relating to Marcion.
However, with this more revisionist approach still accepting Marcion as a
docetist, there was little impetus for successive scholars to question the claim.149
While the overwhelming consensus of scholars accept that Marcion was
a docetist, there are exceptions who at least question this fact, because of
the conflicting evidence. These scholars are to be credited with attempting to
reclaim Marcions view of Christs bodily suffering. Nevertheless, the category of
docetism and/or Tertullians phantasm accusation still haunt their treatment
of Marcion. For example, in an essay on Lukan and Marcionite Christologies,
J. Christiaan Beker believes Marcion did teach that Christ died and attempts to
reconstruct Marcions rationale, but continues to see Marcions Christology as
docetic: Jesus merely conformed to the terms of the creators law.150 Similarly,
in an essay on Marcions Gospel, Peter Head stipulates, Marcion never makes
clear, at least not in a way that we can reconstruct, just how he envisaged the
nature of Jesus body.151 Head, however, continues his discussion accepting
the orthodox charge against Marcion as a docetist, despite admitting Marcion
taught Christ had a body. Another example is Heikki Risnen who expresses
frustration over the reports of Marcions docetism (without denying him to be
a docetist): Even [Marcions] docetism is incomplete: Christ suffers and dies.152
The same apparent contradiction is noted by Enrico Norelli: Er hat zwar eine
doketische Christologie angenommen, was aber jenen Kummer Gottes nicht
beseitigt, weil Marcion, wie alle Forscher zugeben, an der Realitt des Leidens
und des Todes Jesu festgehalten hat.153 Bart Ehrman assumes Marcion was a
148 Ibid., 18.

149 For bibliography, see G. May, Marcion in Contemporary Views, Second Century 6 (1987/88),
129-31. It should be noted that Harnacks attempt to hold to a more complex understand-
ing of Marcion is reflected the work of Greschat, Apelles, 99-109 (cited above).
150 J. Chr. Beker, Christologies and Anthropologies of Paul, LukeActs and Marcion, in
M.C. De Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology
in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (JSNT Sup 84: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993),
174-82.
151 P. Head, The Foreign God and the Sudden Christ: Theology and Christology in Marcions
Gospel Redaction, Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993), 313.
152 H. Risnen, Marcion and the Origins of Christian Anti-Judaism, Temenos 33 (1997), 123.
153 Marcion: Ein christlicher Philosoph oder ein Christ gegen die Philosophie? in Marcion
und seine kirchengeschichtliche Wirkung, ed. May and Greschat, 130.

34 Wilhite
docetist;154 Ehrman recognizes, however, the contradiction between Marcions

docetism and Marcions Gospel, for he says, ...if Jesus didnt actually have
a body, it is hard to say how he could have actually died.155 Richard Pervo in
his recent monograph on the reception of Paul states, Marcion was also a
docetistChrist did not have an earthly body. Once again, however, in con-
trast to other docetic constructions, the non-earthly body of Jesus really suf-
fered and died on a cross.156 In his recent article, Timothy L. Carter offers the
same line of thought: Now, according to Marcion, Jesus is making himself
known to them in his true divine nature, that of spirit...Once the spirit has
left the phantom body of Jesus, the body of Jesus is of no significance, though
the body (such as it is) does actually die and is placed in the tomb. What is
significant for Marcion is that the risen Jesus, divested of his phantom body,
can now appear to his disciples as spirit.157 These scholars are correct to note
154 B. Ehrman, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2006),
343-60, see esp. p. 348: Jesus came to earth only in the appearance of human flesh.
Marcion in short is a docetist, who thought that Jesus was a phantasm. He had not actu-
ally come in the flesh.
155 Ibid. Ehrman proceeds to explain the discrepancy by stating, It may be that the good
God of Jesus pulled a fast one on the God of the Jews.... It is not, however, Jesus or
Jesus god who tricks people in Marcions thinking; it is the demiurge who is so deceptive
(cf. Christs descent into Hades in Iren., Adv. haer. 1.27.3). Ehrmans attempt to explain
away the evidence of Marcions incarnate Christ truly suffering the crucifixion is exactly
that, an explaining away of evidence.
156 R. Pervo, The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2010), 206.
157 T.L. Carter, Marcions Christology and its possible influence on Codex Bezae, JTS 61
(2010), 550-82, citation from 570. Carters assumption is not only that Tertullian witnesses
to Marcions version of Luke 24:39. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.43.6; De carn. Christ. 5.9; and
Epiphanius, Pan. 42, agree that Marcion omitted flesh from this sentence (c. Adamant. 5.1
and 5.12); the startling point for what would be a docetic agenda is that Marcions ver-
sion leave bones in the text), but Tertullian believes that Marcion did so because of his
docetic agenda. However, Tertullian begins his discussion by arguing over his primary
contention with Marcion: the Lukan text, even Marcions version, assumes the Creators
prophecies from the OT. Marcions dualistic theology, not his docetic Christology, sets the
agenda for his reading of Luke (24), according to Tertullian. Tertullian cites the angels
words about how the Son of Man had to be betrayed, crucified and resurrected (24:7),
apparently acknowledging these words to be in Marcions version of Luke. Therefore,
an incarnate Christ, who suffered physically is taken for granted. Because Tertullian is
exerting his energy on the matter of the unity of the two testaments, he here neglects
to slander Marcions non-native Jesus as logically requiring phantasmal flesh. There
is a shift in Adv. Marc. 4.43.6: Tertullian signals Now concerning the verity of his body...
(Evans 505; Moreschini and Braun SC 456:524). Tertullian reads Marcions Luke, which

Marcions Christ as suffering bodily, but I contend that the category of doce-
tism should be reconsidered.
For my part, I see no way around the fact that Marcions belief in the suffer-
ing and death of Christ precludes the appellation of docetism. I find Geoffrey
Dunns conclusion (cited above) to be the most compelling: If Marcion
accepted that Christ truly died, which he did (and this is the important thing
to keep in mind when reading this chapter [De carn.] because it is the unmen-
tioned premise upon which the argument is built...), then logically it must fol-
low that Christ had flesh.158 I concur with Dunn and find that Marcions alleged
docetism exists only in the fabrication of his opponents, who attempted to
press Marcions other beliefs to their logical absurdities so as to persuade oth-
ers not to make the same doctrinal mistakes. One could continue to accept
their portrayal, but a historian utilizing a consistent critical approach must
conclude otherwise.
In Marcions teaching, Christs body was real flesh: in it and with it he ate,
drank, bled, and died. It is not Marcion who taught Christ as a phantasm; it
was Tertullian who portrayed Marcion as teaching this. Christ must be a phan-
tasm in Marcions teaching, according to Tertullian, because Marcion denied
retains the statement for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me having (4.43.6 [Evans 507;
Moreschini and Braun SC 456:524-6]), and so he gives the following explanation as to why
such a verse was allowed to stand in Marcion: Now here Marcion, on purpose I believe,
has abstained from crossing out of his gospel certain matters opposed to him, hoping that
in view of these which he might have crossed out and has not, he may be thought not to
have crossed out those which he has crossed out, or even to have crossed them out with
good reason (Evans 507; Moreschini and Braun SC 456:524). Tertullian then claims that
Marcion interprets the saying a spirit hath not bones as you see me having as teaching
docetism: the disciples did see him as having bones, but this was simply for appear-
ance sake. Tertullian dismisses this out of hand, ...if he was in every respect a phantasm,
why did he upbraid them for thinking him a phantasm? (4.43.7 [Evans 507; Moreschini
and Braun SC 456:526]). Tertullian then, suddenly brings book four to a conclusion,
declaring, I have, I think, fulfilled my promise. I have set before you Jesus as the Christ of
the prophets... (Evans 507; Moreschini and Braun SC 456:526). That is, Tertullians whole
argument is against Marcions theological dualism, not against a Christological docetism
a tenet of Marcions faith only derived by Tertullian via reductio ad absurdum. Moreover,
Tertullians account of Marcions interpretation of Jesus ostiologoi is not an objective
reporting of Marcions view; it is Tertullians conjecture as to why Marcion would have left
this statement intact. Tertullian assumes that Marcion would have twisted the meaning
in an unnatural way, since Tertullian is now assuming that Marcions unborn Christ is
un-incarnate. There is no evidence in the primary sources that Marcion believed Jesus to
have a boneless but enfleshed resurrected pneumatic body.
158 Dunn, Marys Virginity, 472, with ref. to De carn. Christ. 5.1-3 and Adv. Marc. 3.18-9.

36 Wilhite
Christs birth, claimed Christ descended directly from heaven to Capernaum,

and taught that Christ never physically rose but only existed post-Easter as a
spiritual body. The logical conclusion of such a Christology, according to this
anti-Marcionite polemic, is that the body perceived between Epiphany and
Good Friday was a docetic body. While this may or may not be a necessary
end of a theological trajectory of Maricons teachings, Marcion himself did
not think so. He simply proclaimed a temporarily enfleshed Christ. To assert
otherwise, is to rely uncritically on late polemical sources, for there is no cred-
ible evidence from the second and early third century that reports Marcion as
a docetist.

Wilhite2016 Was Marcion A Docetist - The Body of Evidence Vs Tertuliian's Argument PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wilhite2016 Was Marcion A Docetist - The Body of Evidence Vs Tertuliian's Argument PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36 Vigiliae

Was Marcion a Docetist? The Body of Evidence

Marcion docetism Tertullian

Throughout his work, Adversus Marcionem, Tertullian mocks Marcion. For

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 6|doi 10.1163/15700720-12341272

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

1) Replacementist docetism, where Christ appears to be crucified, but

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

The second kind of docetism listed here, possessionistic docetism, was so

16 E.g. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.33.

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

29 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.6.1.

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

37 The primary texts will be cited below. N. Brox, Doketismuseine Problemanzeige,

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

The Earliest Sources on Marcion

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

defend this account as historically valid, there is no mention of Marcions

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Moreover, he [a true disciple] shall also examine the doctrine of Marcion,

64 Cf. Tertullian, De carn. Christ. 5; Adv. Marc. 4.40-43.

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

There are four items worthy of note about this passage.

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Later Sources on Marcion(ism)

For later opponents of Marcion, or better Marcionism, the primary charge

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

not incarnate, for he only appeared () so but was in fact a phantasm.74

74 10.19 (Marcovich 399).

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Docetic Christology, it must be insisted, is nowhere in view in Cyprians let-

82 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.7.6.

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

concluding paragraphs (42.13.1-42.16.14) of docetism. It seems that Epiphanius

Tertullians Argument Against Marcion

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

is accused of deleting passages from Luke that were never in Luke.98 In

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Nowhere is this more apparent than with Marcions docetism,100 for

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Tertullians principle concern (pun intended, to be sure) with Marcion, then

108 Adv. Marc. 1.11.8 (Evans 31; Braun SC 456:152).

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Tertullians ability to set the scene in such graphically unforgettable form is

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

In his 2007 article Geoffrey Dunn commented on this passage to say, If

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Marcions Docetism in the Secondary Literature

It remains to be seen why the overwhelming consensus of scholars read the

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Marcions Christ assumed.137 In his early work Harnack accepted Polycarps

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

Vigiliae Christianae 70 (2016) 1-36

16 E.g. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.33.

29 Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1.6.1.

37 The primary texts will be cited below. N. Brox, Doketismuseine Problemanzeige,

64 Cf. Tertullian, De carn. Christ. 5; Adv. Marc. 4.40-43.

74 10.19 (Marcovich 399).

82 Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.7.6.

108 Adv. Marc. 1.11.8 (Evans 31; Braun SC 456:152).

148 Ibid., 18.