Jesus was Imaginary: My Prefential Terminology in Place of 'Mythicism'

[Secret Alias]

So Against Marcion Book Three - in a section which begins and ends with Marcion 'borrowing' from the Jews - has the explicit claim of the author that, at least with respect to his understanding that Jesus/Man is a phantasma THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING HE BORROWED FROM THE JEWS but developed from his own understanding. Is that the end of that? Is it so simply because the Latin text says it was so? Not quite. It is well known that Book Three is hobbled together from a patchwork of earlier sources:

Chapters 1 - 6 Papias's Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις
Chapter 7 a common ancestor (undoubtedly from Justin Martyr) with Against the Jews

Against Marcion 3.7 Discat nunc haereticus ex abundanti cum ipso licebit Iudaeo rationem quoque errorum eius, a quo ducatum mutuatus in hac argumentatione caecus a caeco in eandem decidit foveam. Duos dicimus Christi habitus a prophetis demonstratos totidem adventus eius praenotasse: unum in humilitate, utique primum, cum tanquam ovis ad victimam deduci habebat, et tanquam agnus ante tondentem sine voce, ita non aperiens os suum, ne aspectu quidem honestus. Annuntiavimus enim, inquit, de illo: sicut puerulus, sicut radix in terra sitienti, et non est species eius neque gloria, et vidimus eum, et non habebat speciem neque decorem, sed species eius inhonorata, deficiens citra filios hominum, homo in plaga, et sciens ferre infirmitatem, ut positus a patre in lapidem offensionis et petram scandali, minoratus ab eo modicum citra angelos, vermem se pronuntians et non hominem, ignominiam hominis et nullificamen populi. [3] Quae ignobilitatis argumenta primo adventui competunt, sicut sublimitatis secundo, cum fiet iam non lapis offensionis nec petra scandali, sed lapis summus angularis post reprobationem adsumptus et sublimatus in consummationem templi, ecclesiae scilicet, et petra sane illa apud Danielem de monte praecisa, quae imaginem saecularium regnorum comminuet et conteret. [4] De quo adventu idem prophetes, Et ecce cum nubibus caeli tanquam filius hominis veniens, venit usque ad eterem dierum, aderat in conspectu eius, et qui adsistebant adduxerunt illum, et data est ei potestas regia, et omnes nationes terrae secundum genera, et omnis gloria famulabunda, et potestas eius usque in aevum, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius quod non vitiabitur, [5] tunc scilicet habiturus et speciem honorabilem et decorem indeficientem super filios hominum. Tempestivus enim, inquit, decore citra filios hominum, effusa est gratia in labiis tuis, propterea benedixit te deus in aevum. Accingere ensem super femur tuum, potens tempestivitate tua et pulchritudine tua; cum et pater, posteaquam diminuit eum modicum quid citra angelos, gloria et honore coronabit illum et subiciet omnia pedibus eius. [6] Tunc et cognoscent eum qui compugerunt, et caedent pectora sua tribus ad tribum, utique quod retro non agnoverunt eum in humilitate condicionis humanae: Et homo est, inquit Hieremias, et quis cognoscet illum? Quia et, Nativitatem eius Esaias, quis, inquit, enarrabit? Sic et apud Zachariam in persona Iesu, immo et in ipso nominis sacramento, verus summus sacerdos patris, Christus Iesus, duplici habitu in duos adventus delineatur, primo sordidis indutus, id est carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate, cum et diabolus adversabatur ei, auctor scilicet Iudae traditoris, ne dicam etiam post baptisma temptator, dehinc despoliatus pristinas sordes, et exornatus podere et mitra et cidari munda, id est secundi adventus gloria et honore. [7] Si enim et duorum hircomm qui ieiunio offerebantur faciam interpretationem, nonne et illi utrumque ordinem Christi figurant? Pares quidem atque consimiles propter eundem dominum conspectum, quia non in alia venturus est fonna, ut qui agnosci habeat a quibus laesus est. Alter autem eorum circumdatus coccino, maledictus et consputus et convulsus et compunctus, a populo extra civitatem adiciebatur2 in perditionem, manifestis notatus insignibus dominicae passionis. Alter vero, pro delictis oblatus et sacerdotibus templi in pabulum datus, secundae repraesentationis argumenta signabat, qua delictis omnibus expiatis sacerdotes templi spiritalis, id est ecclesiae, dominicae gratiae quasi visceratione quadam fruerentur, ieiunantibus ceteris a salute. [8] Igitur quoniam primus adventus et plurimum figuris obscuratus et omni inhonestate prostratus canebatur, secundus vero et manifestus et deo condignus, idcirco quem facile et intellegere et credere potuerunt, eum solum intuentes, id est secundum, non immerito decepti sunt circa obscuriorem, certe indigniorem, id est primum. Atque ita in hodiernum negant venisse Christum suum, quia non in sublimitate venerit, dum ignorant etiam in humilitate fuisse venturum.

Against the Jews 14 Discite nunc ex abundantia erroris vestri ducatum. Duos dicimus Christi habitus a prophetis demonstratos totidem adventus eius praenotatos. Unum in humilitate, utique primum, cum tanquam ovis ad victimam duci habebat, et tanquam agnus ante tondentem sine voce, sic non aperuit suum, ne aspectu quidem honestus. Annuntiavimus enim, inquit, de illo sicut puerulus, sicut radix in terra sitienti, et non erat ei species neque gloria. Et vidimus eum, et non habebat speciem neque decorem, sed species eius inhonorata, deficiens citra filios hominum, homo in plaga, et sciens ferre rofirmitatem, scilicet ut positus a patre in lapidem offensionis, et minoratus ab eo modicum citra angelos, vermem se pronuntiat, et non hominem, ignominiam hominis et abiectionem populi. Quae ignobilitatis argumenta primo adventui competunt, sicut sublimitatis secundo, cum fiet, iam non lapis offensionis, nec petra scandali, sed lapis summus angularis post reprobationem adsumptus et sublimatus in consummationem, et petra sane illa apud Danielem de monte praecisa, quae imaginem saecularium regnorum comminuet et conteret. De quo secundo adventu eiusdem Daniel dixit: Et ecce cum nubibus caeli tanquam filius hominis veniens venit usque ad veterem dierum, et aderat in conspectu eius, et qui adsistebant, adduxerunt illum, et data est ei potestas regia, et omnes nationes terrae secundum genus et omnis gloria servient illi, et potestas illius aeterna, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius, quod non corrumpetur. Tunc scilicet speciem honorabilem et decorem habiturus est indeficientem ultra filios hominum, tempestivus enim decore citra filios hominum. Effusa est gratia, inquit, in labiis tuis, propterea benedixit te deus in aeternum. Accingere ensem tuum circa femur tuum, potentissime tempestivitate et pulchritudine tua; cum et pater postea, cum diminuit illum modicum quid citra angelos, gloria et honore coronavit illum, et subiecit omnia sub pedibus eius. Et tune cognoscent eum, qoem pupugerunt, et caedent pectora sua tribus ad tribum, utique quod retro non agnoverint eum in humilitate condicionis humanae constitutum. Hieremias inquit Homo est, et quis cognoscet illum? quia et nativitatem eius, inquit Esaias, quis enarrabit? Sic et apud Zachariam in persona ipsius, immo et in ipsius nominis sacramento, verissimus sacerdos patris Christus ipsius duplici habitu in duos adventus deliniatur. Primo sordibus indutus est, id est carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate, cum et diabolus adversabatur ei, auctor scilicet Iudae traditoris, qui eum etiam post baptismum temptaverat. Dehinc spoliatus pristina sorde, exornatus podere et mitra et cidari munda, id est secundi adventus; quoniam gloriam et honorem adeptus demonstratur. Nec poteritis eum Iosedech filium dicere, qui nulla omnino veste sordida, sed semper sacerdotali fuit exornatus, nec unquam sacerdotali munere privatus. Sed Iesus iste Christus, dei patris summi sacerdos, qui primo adventu suo humana forma et passibilis venit in humilitate usque ad passionem, ipse etiam effectus hostia per omnia pro omnibus nobis, qui post resurrectionem suam indutus poderem sacerdos in aeternum dei patris nuncupatus est. Sic enim et duorum hircorum, qui ieiunio offerebantur, faciam interpretationem. Nonne et illi utrumque ordinem nominis Christi, qui iam venit, ostendunt? pares quidem atque consimiles propter eundem domini conspectum, quia non in alia venturus est forma, ut qui agnosci habet a quibus et laesus est. Unus autem eorum circumdatus coccino, maledictus et consputatus et convulsus et compunctus, a populo extra civitatem abiciebatur in perditionem, manifestis notatus insignibus Christi passionis, qui coccinea circumdatus veste et consputatus et omnibus contumeliis afflictus extra civitatem crucifixus est. Alter vero, pro delictis oblatus et sacerdotibus tantum templi in pabulum datus, secundae repraesentationis argumenta signabat, qua delictis omnibus expiatis sacerdotes templi spiritalis, id est ecclesiae, dominicae gratiae quasi visceratione quadam fruerentur, ieiunantibus ceteris a salute. Igitur quoniam primus adventus et plurimis figuris obscuratus et omni inhonestate prostratus canebatur, secundus vero et manifestus et deo condignus, idcirco quem facile et intellegere et credere potuerunt, eum solum intuentes, id est secundum, qui est in honore et gloria, non immerito decepti sunt circa obscuriorem, certe indigmorem, id est primum. Atque ita in hodiernum negant venisse Christum suum, quia non in sublimitate venerit, dum ignorant in humilitate primo fuisse venturum. Sufficit hucusque de his interim ordinem Christi decucurrisse, quo talis probatur qualis adnuntiabatur, ut iam ex ista consonantia scripturarum divinarum intellegamus et quae post Christum futura praedicabantur ex dispositione divina credantur expuncta. Nisi enim ille venisset post quem habebant expungi, nullo modo evenissent quae in adventum eius futura praedicabantur. Igitur si universas nationes de profundo erroris humani exinde emergentes ad deum creatorem et Christum eius cernitis (quod prophetatum non audetis negare, quia etsi negaretis, statim vobis in psalmis, sicuti iam praelocuti sumus, promissio patris occurreret, dicentis: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te, pete a me et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam et possessiouem tuam terminos terrae), nec poteritis in istam praedicationem magis David filium Salomonem vindicare quam Christum dei filium, nec terminos terrae David filio promissos, qui intra unicam Iudaeam regnavit, quam Christro filio dei, qui totum iam orbem evangelii sui radiis illuminavit. Denique et thronus in aevum magis Christo dei filio competit quam Salomoni, temporali scilicet regi, qui soli Israëli regnavit. Christum enim hodie invocant nationes, quae eum non sciebant, et populi hodie ad Christum confugiunt, quem retro ignorabant. Non potes futurum contendere quod vides fieri. Haec aut prophetata nega, cum coram videntur, aut adimpleta, cum leguntur, aut si non negas utrumque, in eo erunt adimpleta in quem sunt prophetata.

That is comes from Justin:

https://books.google.com/books?id=YZxLA ... 22&f=false

Two different works attributed to Tertullian appropriate a section of text from Justin and use it in different ways. In Against the Jews it forms the conclusion of a work directed against the Jewish interpretation of scripture. In our present work Against Marcion it comes immediately following an accusation that the Marcionites have a gospel which rejects Matthew's 'Dominical logia' and thus 'lacks the order' but 'agrees' with the Jewish understanding of the Dominal oracles predicting a warrior messiah like David. We then segue in what immediately follows in chapter 8 to an even stranger argument that John seems to predict Marcion but only because there were 'Marcionites before Marcion' who John knew (rather than John actually knowing Marcion:

[1] Desinat nunc haereticus a Iudaeo, aspis quod aiunt a vipera, mutuari venenum, evomat iam hinc proprii ingenii virus, phan- tasma vindicans Christum. Nisi quod et ista sententia alios habebit auctores, praecoquos et abortivos quodammodo Marcionitas, quos apostolus Ioannes antichristos pronuntiavit, negantes Christum in carne venisse, et tamen non ut alterius dei ius constituerent, quia et de isto notati fuissent, sed quoniam incredibile praesumpserant deum carnem. [2] Quo magis antichristus Marcion sibi eam rapuit praesumptionem, aptior scilicet ad renuendam corporalem substantiam Christi, qui ipsum deum eius nec auctorem carnis induxerat nec resuscitatorem, optimum videlicet et in isto, et
diversissimum a mendaciis et fallaciis creatoris. Et ideo Christu eius, ne mentiretur, ne falleret, et hoc modo creatoris forsitan deputaretur, non erat quod videbatur, et quod erat mentiebatur, caro nec caro, homo nec homo, proinde deus Christus nec deus. [3] Cur enim non etiam dei phantasma portaverit? An credam ei de interiore substantia qui sit de exteriore frustratus? Quomodo verax habebitur in occulto tam fallax repertus in aperto? Quomodo autem in semetipso veritatem spiritus fallacia carnis confundens, negatam ab apostolo lucis, id est veritatis, et fallaciae, id est tenebrarum, commisit communicationem? [4] Iam nunc cum mendacium deprehenditur Christus1 caro, sequitur ut et omnia quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt mendacio gesta sint, congressus, contactus, convictus, ipsae quoque virtutes. Si enim tangendo aliquem liberavit a vitio vel tactus ab aliquo, quod corporaliter actum est non potest vere actum credi sine corporis ipsius veritate. Nihil solidum ab inani, nihil plenum a vacuo perfici licuit. Putativus habitus, putativus actus: imaginarius operator, imaginariae operae. [5] Sic nec passiones Christi eius fidem merebuntur. Nihil enim passus est qui non vere est passus; vere autem pati phantasma non potuit. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demandat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostrae et praedicationis suae. Tradidi enim, inquit, vobis inprimis, quod Christus mortuus sit pro peccatis nostris, et quod sepultus sit, et quod resurrexerit tertia die. [6] Porro si caro eius negatur, quomodo mors eius asseveratur, quae propria carnis est passio, per mortem devertentis in terram de qua est sumpta, secundum legem sui auctoris? Negata vero morte, dum caro negatur, nec de resurrectione constabit. Eadem enim ratione non resurrexit qua mortuus non est, non habendo substantiam scilicet carnis, cuius sicut et mors, ita et resurrectio est. Proinde resurrectione Christi infirmata etiam nostra subversa est. Nec ea enim valebit, propter quam Christus venit, si Christi non valebit. [7] Nam sicut illi, qui dicebant resurrectionem mortuorum non esse, revincuntur ab apostolo ex resurrectione Christi, ita resurrectione Christi non consistente aufertur et mortuorum resurrectio. Atque ita inanis est et fides nostra, inanis est praedicatio apostolorum. Inveniuntur autem etiam falsi testes dei, quod
testimonium dixerint quasi resuscitaverit Christum quem non resuscitavit. Et sumusadhuc in delictis. Et qui in Christo dormierunt, perierunt; sane resurrecturi, sed phantasmate forsitan, sicut et Christus.

Let's leave aside the claim that Tertullian makes here that 'earlier' Marcion borrowed from the Jews but not with respect to the phantasma. Instead let's move on to chapter 10 which is borrowed from yet another source shared with On the Flesh of Christ:

Against Marcion 3.9. [1] In ista quaestione qui putaveris opponendos esse nobis angelos creatoris, quasi et illi in phantasmate, putativae utique carnis, egerint apud Abraham et Loth, et tamen vere sint et congressi et pasti et operati quod mandatum eis fuerat, primo non admitteris ad eius dei exempla quem destruis.

On the Flesh of Christ 3 [1] Necesse est, quatenus hoc putas arbitrio tuo licuisse, ut aut impossibilem aut inconvenientem deo existimaveris nativitatem. sed deo nihil impossibile nisi quod non vult. an ergo voluerit nasci (quia si voluit, et potuit et natus est) consideremus. ad compendium decurro. si enim nasci se deus noluisset, quacunque de causa, nec hominem se videri praestitisset: nam quis, hominem videns eum, negaret natum? ita quod noluisset esse nec videri omnino voluisset. [2] omnis rei displicentis etiam opinio reprobatur, quia nihil interest utrum sit quid an non sit, si cum non sit esse praesumitur: plane interest illud ut falsum non patiatur quod vere non est. 'Sed satis erat illi, inquis, conscientia sua: viderint homines si natum putabant quia hominem videbant.' [3] quanto ergo dignius, quo constantius, humanam sustinuisset existimationem vere natus, eandem existimationem etiam non natus subiturus cum iniuria conscientiae suae. quantum ad fiduciam reputas ut non natus adversus conscientiam suam natum se existimari sustineret? quid tanti fuit, edoce, quod sciens Christus quid esset id se quod non erat exhiberet? [4] non potes dicere, 'Ne si natus fuisset et hominem vere induisset deus esse desisset, amittens quod erat dum fit quod non erat': periculum enim status sui deo nullum est. 'Sed ideo, inquis, nego deum in hominem vere conversum, ita ut et nasceretur et carne corporaretur, quia qui sine fine est etiam inconvertibilis sit necesse est: converti enim in aliud finis est pristini: [5] non competit ergo conversio cui non competit finis.' plane natura convertibilium ea lege est ne permaneant in eo quod convertitur in eis, et ita non permanendo pereant dum perdunt convertendo quod fuerunt. sed nihil deo par est: natura eius ab omnium rerum conditione distat. si ergo quae a deo distant, a quibus et deus distat, cum convertuntur amittunt quod fuerunt, ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a ceteris rebus nisi ut contrarium obtineat, id est ut deus et in omnia converti possit et qualis est perseverare? [6] alioquin par erit eorum quae conversa amittunt quod fuerunt, quorum utique deus in omnibus par non est: sic nec in exitu conversionis. angelos creatoris conversos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse veritatem ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham et manibus ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth, conluctatus quoque homini angelus toto corporis pondere dimitti desideraverit, adeo detinebatur.

The reason I have cited so much of On the Flesh of Christ is that I wanted to establish without a doubt that this is closer to the original context of the discussion of the 'Jewish angels.' On the Flesh of Christ begins by noting that Marcion denies the virgin birth and even the report in Luke about a census and then introduces the common information about Marcionite interest in the angels that appeared before Abraham in Genesis 18. Clearly On the Flesh of Christ correctly explains that THE REASON why the Marcionites denied the virgin birth is because Jesus WAS LIKE the Jewish angels. But notice also that in addition to Genesis 18 the wrestling with Jacob is also referenced (see above in red). Greshat "'° Die Engel, die in den Schriften des Alten Testaments vorkamen, waren nach Marcion in Tert. De carn. 3.6 ... 1 so manifest körperlich vorgestellt, daß Abraham ihnen die Füße waschen konnte, daß sie mit ihren eigenen Händen Loth vor den Sodomitern retten konnte oder daß Jakob mit einem von ihnen kämpfen konnte: «Angelos creatoris conversos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti et tantam corporis veritatem ...."

The point here is that by the time the more original material in On the Flesh of Christ gets incorporated into Against Marcion 3

(a) the reference in On the Flesh of Christ to the wrestling with Jacob is removed
(b) the explicit reference in Against Marcion to Marcion referring to Jesus as a 'phantasma' is added
(c) the reference in On the Flesh of Christ to Marcion sharing Jewish beliefs is removed
(d) the explicit reference to Marcion inventing the phantasma Jesus on his own is added to Against Marcion

It is a complete transformation.

[Secret Alias]

The rest of Against Marcion 3.9 - 11 and On the Flesh of Christ compared:

Against Marcion 3 9 - 11

For by how much you make your god a better and more perfect being, by just so much will all examples be unsuitable to him of that God from whom he totally differs, and without which difference he would not be at all better or more perfect. [2] But then, secondly, you must know that it will not be conceded to you, that in the angels there was only a putative flesh, but one of a true and solid human substance. For if (on your terms) it was no difficulty to him to manifest true sensations and actions in a putative flesh, it was much more easy for him still to have assigned the true substance of flesh to these true sensations and actions, as the proper maker and former thereof. [3] But your god, perhaps on the ground of his having produced no flesh at all, was quite right in introducing the mere phantom of that of which he had been unable to produce the reality. My God, however, who formed that which He had taken out of the dust of the ground in the true quality of flesh, although not issuing as yet from conjugal seed, was equally able to apply to angels too a flesh of any material whatsoever, who built even the world out of nothing, into so many and so various bodies, and that at a word! [4] And, really, if your god promises to men some time or other the true nature of angels133 (for he says, "They shall be like the angels"), why should not my God also have fitted on to angels the true substance of men, from whatever source derived? For not even you will tell me, in reply, whence is obtained that angelic nature on your side; so that it is enough for me to define this as being fit and proper to God, even the verity of that thing which was objective to three senses--sight, touch, and hearing. [5] It is more difficult for God to practise deception134 than to produce real flesh from any material whatever, even without the means of birth. But for other heretics, also, who maintain that the flesh in the angels ought to have been born of flesh, if it had been really human, we have an answer on a sure principle, to the effect that it was truly human flesh, and yet not born. It was truly human, because of the truthfulness of God, who can neither lie nor deceive, and because (angelic beings) cannot be dealt with by men in a human way except in human substance: it was withal unborn, because none135 but Christ could become incarnate by being born of the flesh in order that by His own nativity He might regenerate136 our birth, and might further by His death also dissolve our death, by rising again in that flesh in which, that He might even die, He was born. [6] Therefore on that occasion He did Himself appear with the angels to Abraham in the verity of the flesh, which had not as yet undergone birth, because it was not yet going to die, although it was even now learning to hold intercourse amongst men. Still greater was the propriety in angels, who never received a dispensation to die for us, not having assumed even a brief experience137 of flesh by being born, because they were not destined to lay it down again by dying; [7] but, from whatever quarter they obtained it, and by what means soever they afterwards entirely divested themselves of it, they yet never pretended it to be unreal flesh. Since the Creator "maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire"--as truly spirits as also fire--so has He truly made them flesh likewise; wherefore we can now recall to our own minds, and remind the heretics also, that He has promised that He will one day form men into angels, who once formed angels into men.

[1] Therefore, since you are not permitted to resort to any instances of the Creator, as alien from the subject, and possessing special causes of their own, I should like you to state yourself the design of your god, in exhibiting his Christ not in the reality of flesh. If he despised it as earthly, and (as you express it) full of dung,138 why did he not on that account include the likeness of it also in his contempt? For no honour is to be attributed to the image of anything which is itself unworthy of honour. As the natural state is, so will the likeness be. [2] But how could he hold converse with men except in the image of human substance?139 Why, then, not rather in the reality thereof, that his intercourse might be real, since he was under the necessity of holding it? And to how much better account would this necessity have been turned by ministering to faith rather than to a fraud!140 [3] The god whom you make is miserable enough, for this very reason that he was unable to display his Christ except in the effigy of an unworthy, and indeed an alien, thing. In some instances, it will be convenient to use even unworthy things, if they be only our own, as it will also be quite improper to use things, be they ever so worthy, if they be not our own.141 Why, then, did he not come in some other worthier substance, and especially his own, that he might not seem as if he could not have done without an unworthy and an alien one? [4] Now, since my Creator held intercourse with man by means of even a bush and fire, and again afterwards by means of a cloud and column,142 and in representations of Himself used bodies composed of the elements, these examples of divine power afford sufficient proof that God did not require the instrumentality of false or even of real flesh. But yet, if we look steadily into the subject, there is really no substance which is worthy of becoming a vestment for God. [5] Whatsoever He is pleased to clothe Himself withal, He makes worthy of Himself--only without untruth.143 Therefore how comes it to pass that he should have thought the verity of the flesh, rather than its unreality, a disgrace? Well, but he honoured it by his fiction of it. How great, then, is that flesh, the very phantasy of which was a necessity to the superior God!

[1] All these illusions of an imaginary corporeity144 in (his) Christ, Marcion adopted with this view, that his nativity also might not be furnished with any evidence from his human substance, and that thus the Christ of the Creator might be free to have assigned to Him all predictions which treated of Him as one capable of human birth, and therefore fleshly. But most foolishly did our Pontic heresiarch act in this too. As if it would not be more readily believed that flesh in the Divine Being should rather be unborn than untrue, this belief having in fact had the way mainly prepared for it by the Creator's angels when they conversed in flesh which was real, although unborn. [2] For indeed the notorious Philumena persuaded Apelles and the other seceders from Marcion rather to believe that Christ did really carry about a body of flesh; not derived to Him, however, from birth, but one which He borrowed from the elements. Now, as Marcion was apprehensive that a belief of the fleshly body would also involve a belief of birth, undoubtedly He who seemed to be man was believed to be verily and indeed born. [3] For a certain woman had exclaimed, "Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked!"146 And how else could they have said that His mother and His brethren were standing without?147 [4] But we shall see more of this in the proper place.148 Surely, when He also proclaimed Himself as the Son of man, He, without doubt, confessed that He had been born. Now I would rather refer all these points to an examination of the gospel; but still, as I have already stated, if he, who seemed to be man, had by all means to pass as having been born, it was vain for him to suppose that faith in his nativity was to be perfected149 by the device of an imaginary flesh. [5] For what advantage was there in that being not true which was held to be true, whether it were his flesh or his birth? Or if you should say, let human opinion go for nothing; you are then honouring your god under the shelter of a deception, since he knew himself to be something different from what he had made men to think of him. In that case you might possibly have assigned to him a putative nativity even, and so not have hung the question on this point. [6] For silly women fancy themselves pregnant sometimes, when they are corpulent either from their natural flux or from some other malady. And, no doubt, it had become his duty, since he had put on the mere mask of his substance, to act out from its earliest scene the play of his phantasy, lest he should have failed in his part at the beginning of the flesh. You have, of course,153 rejected the sham of a nativity, and have produced true flesh itself. And, no doubt, even the real nativity of a God is a most mean thing.154 [7] Come then, wind up your cavils against the most sacred and reverend works of nature; inveigh against all that you are; destroy the origin of flesh and life; call the womb a sewer of the illustrious animal--in other words, the manufactory for the production of man; dilate on the impure and shameful tortures of parturition, and then on the filthy, troublesome, contemptible issues of the puerperal labour itself! But yet, after you have pulled all these things down to infamy, that you may affirm them to be unworthy of God, birth will not be worse for Him than death, infancy than the cross, punishment than nature, condemnation than the flesh. [8] If Christ truly suffered all this, to be born was a less thing for Him. If Christ suffered evasively,156 as a phantom; evasively, too, might He have been born. Such are Marcion's chief arguments by which he makes out another Christ; and I think that we show plainly enough that they are utterly irrelevant, when we teach how much more truly consistent with God is the reality rather than the falsehood of that condition157 in which He manifested His Christ. [9] Since He was "the truth," He was flesh; since He was flesh, He was born. For the points which this heresy assaults are confirmed, when the means of the assault are destroyed. Therefore if He is to be considered in the flesh,158 because He was born; and born, because He is in the flesh, and because He is no phantom,--it follows that He must be acknowledged as Himself the very Christ of the Creator, who was by the Creator's prophets foretold as about to come in the flesh, and by the process of human birth.159

Nam et quanto meliorem et perfectiorem deum inducis, tanto non competunt illi eius exempla quo nisi diversus in totum non erit omnino melior atque perfectior. [2] Dehinc scito nec illud concedi tibi, ut putativa fuerit in angelis caro, sed verae et solidae substantiae humanae. Si enim difficile non fuit illi putativae carnis veros et sensus et actus exhibere, multo facilius habuit veris et sensibus et actibus veram dedisse substantiam carnis, vel qua proprius auctor et artifex eius. [3] Tuus autem deus, eo quod carnem nullam omnino produxerit, merito fortasse phantasma eius intulerit cuius non valuerat veritatem. Meus autem deus, qui illam de limo sumptam in hac reformavit qualitate, nondum ex semine coniugali et tamen carnem, aeque potuit ex quacunque materia angelis quoque adstruxisse carnem, qui etiam mundum ex nihilo in tot ac talia corpora, et quidem verbo aedificavit. [4] Et utique, si deus tuus veram quandoque substantiam angelorum hominibus pollicetur, Erunt enim, inquit, sicut angeli, cur non et deus meus veram substantiam hominum angelis accommodarit undeunde1 sumptam? Quia nec tu mihi respondebis unde illa apud te angelica sumatur, sufficit mihi hoc definire quod deo congruit, veritatem scilicet eius rei quam tribus testibus sensibus obiecit, visui, tactui, auditui. [5] Difficilius deo mentiri quam carnis veritatem undeunde1 producere, licet non natae. Ceterum et aliis haereticis, definientibus carnem illam in angelis ex carne nasci debuisse si vere fuisset humana, certa ratione respondemus, qua et humana vere fuerit et innata: humana vere propter dei veritatem a mendacio et fallacia extranei, et quia non possent humanitus tractari ab hominibus nisi in substantia humana; innata autem, quia solus Christus in carnem ex carne nasci habebat, ut nativitatem nostram nativitate sua reformaret, atque ita etiam mortem nostram morte sua dissolveret resurgendo in carne in qua natus est ut et mori posset. [6] Ideoque et ipse cum angelis tunc apud Abraham in veritate quidem carnis apparuit, sed nondum natae quia nondum moriturae, sed et discentis iam inter homines conversari. Quo magis angeli, neque ad moriendum pro nobis dispositi, brevem carnis commeatum non debuerunt nascendo sumpsisse, quia nec moriendo deposituri eam fuerant; [7] sed undeunde1 sumptam et quoquo modo omnino dimissam, mentiti eam tamen non sunt. Si creator facit angelos spiritus et apparitores suos ignem flagrantem, tam vere spiritus quam et ignem, idem illos vere fecit et carnem, ut nunc recordemur et haereticis renuntiemus eius esse promissum homines in angelos reformandi quandoque qui angelos in homines formarit aliquando. 10. [1] Igitur non admissus ad consortium exemplorum creatoris, ut alienorum, et suas habentium causas, velim edas et ipse consilium dei tui, quo Christum suum non in veritate carnis exhibuit. Si aspernatus est illam ut terrenam et, ut dicitis, stercoribus infersam, cur non et simulacrum eius proinde despexit? Nullius enim dedignandae rei imago dignanda est. Sequitur statum similitudo. [2] Sed quomodo inter homines conversaretur, nisi per imaginem substantiae humanae? Cur ergo non potius per veritatem, ut vere conversaretur, si necesse habebat conversari? Quanto dignius necessitas fidem quam stropham administrasset? [3] Satis miserum deum instituis, hoc ipso quod Christum suum non potuit exhibere nisi in indignae rei effigie, et quidem alienae. Aliquantis1 enim indignis conveniet uti, si nostris, sicut alienis non congruet uti, licet dignis. Cur enim non in aliqua alia digniore substantia venit, et inprimis sua, ne et indigna et aliena videretur eguisse? [4] Si creator meus per rubum quoque et ignem, idem postea per nubem et globum cum homine congressus est, et elementorum corporibus in repraesentationibus sui usus est, satis haec exempla divinae potestatis ostendunt deum non eguisse aut falsae aut etiam verae carnis paratura. Ceterum si ad certum spectamus, nulla substantia digna est quam deus induat. [5] Quodcunque induerit, ipse dignum facit, absque mendacio tamen. Et ideo quale est ut dedecus existimarit veritatem potius quam mendacium carnis ? Atquin honoravit illam fingendo. Quanta iam caro est cuius phantasma necessarium fuit deo superiori?

11. [1] Totas istas praestigias putativae in Christo corpulentiae Marcion illa intentione suscepit, ne ex testimonio substantiae humanae nativitas quoque eius defenderetur, atque ita Christus creatoris vindicaretur, ut qui nascibilis ac per hoc carneus annuntiaretur. Stultissime et hic Ponticus; quasi non facilius crederetur caro in deo non nata quam falsa, praestruentibus vel maxime fidem istam angelis creatoris in carne vera conversatis, nec tamen nata. [2] Nam et Philumene illa magis persuasit Apelli ceterisque desertoribus Marcionis ex fide quidem Christum circumtulisse carnem, nullius tamen nativitatis, utpote de elementis eam mutuatum.1 Quodsi verebatur Marcion ne fides carnis nativitatis quoque fidem induceret, sine dubio qui homo videbatur, natus utique credebatur. [3] Nam et mulier quaedam exclamaverat, Beatus venter qui te portavit, et ubera quae hausisti. Et quomodo mater et fratres eius dicti sunt foris stare? [4] Et videbimus de his capitulis suo tempore. Certe cum et ipse se filium hominis praedicaret, natum scilicet profitebatur. Nunc ut haec omnia ad evangelii distulerim examinationem, tamen, quod supra statui, si omni modo natus credi habebat qui homo videbatur, vane nativitatis fidem consilio imaginariae carnis expungendam2 putavit. [5] Quid enim profuit non vere fuisse quod pro vero haberetur, tam carnem quam nativitatem ? Aut si dixeris, viderit opinio humana: iam deum tuum honoras fallaciae titulo, si aliud se sciebat esse quam quod homines fecerat opinari. Iam tunc potuisti etiam nativitatem putativam illi accommodasse, ne in hanc quoque impegisses quaestionem. [6] Nam et mulierculae nonnunquam praegnantes sibi videntur aut sanguinis tributo3 aut aliqua valetudine inflatae. Et utique debuerat phantasmatis scenam decucurrisse, ne originem carnis non desaltasset, qui personam substantiae ipsius egisset. Plane nativitatis mendacium recusasti: ipsam enim carnem veram edidisti. Turpissimum scilicet dei etiam vera nativitas. [7] Age iam, perora in illa sanctissima et reverenda opera naturae, invehere in totum quod es: carnis atque animae originem destrue; cloacam voca uterum tanti animalis, id est hominis, producendi officinam; persequere et partus immunda et pudenda tormenta, et ipsius exinde puerperii spurcos, anxios, ludicros exitus. Tamen cum omnia ista destruxeris, ut deo indigna4 confirmes, non erit indignior morte nativitas et cruce infantia et natura poena et caro damnatione.5 [8] Si vere ista passus est Christus, minus fuit nasci. Si mendacio passus est, ut phantasma, potuit et mendacio nasci. Summa ista Marcionis argumenta, per quae alium efficit Christum, satis opinor ostendimus non consistere omnino, dum docemus magis utique competere deo veritatem quam mendacium eius habitus in quo Christum suum exhibuit. [9] Si veritas fuit, caro fuit; si caro fuit, natus est. Ea enim quae expugnat haec haeresis confirmantur, cum ea per quae expugnat destruuntur. Itaque, si carneus habebitur quia natus, et natus quia carneus, quia phantasma6 non fuerit, ipse erit agnoscendus qui in carne et ex nativitate venturus annuntiabatur a creatoris prophetis, utpote Christus creatoris.

On the Flesh of Christ

3 [7] quod ergo angelis inferioris dei licuit conversis in corpulentiam humanam, ut angeli nihilominus permanerent, hoc tu potentiori deo auferes, quasi non valuerit Christus eius vere hominem indutus deus perseverare? aut numquid et angeli illi phantasma carnis apparuerunt? sed non audebis hoc dicere: nam si sic apud te angeli creatoris sicut et Christus, eius dei erit Christus cuius angeli tales qualis et Christus. [8] si scripturas opinioni tuae resistentes non de industria alias reiecisses alias corrupisses, confudisset te in hac specie evangelium Iohannis praedicans spiritum columbae corpore lapsum desedisse super dominum. qui spiritus cum [hoc] esset, tam vere erat et columba quam et spiritus, nec interfecerat substantiam propriam assumpta substantia extranea. [9] sed quaeris corpus columbae ubi sit, resumpto spiritu in caelum. aeque et angelorum, eadem ratione interceptum est qua et editum fuerat. si vidisses cum de nihilo proferebatur, scisses et cum in nihilum subducebatur. si non fuit initium visibile, nec finis. tamen corporis soliditas erat quoquo momento corpus videbatur: non potest non fuisse quod scriptum est.

IV. [1] Igitur si neque ut impossibilem neque ut periculosam deo repudias corporationem, superest ut quasi indignam reicias et accuses. ab ipsa quidem exorsus odio habita nativitate perora, age iam spurcitias genitalium in utero elementorum, humoris et sanguinis foeda coagula, carnis ex eodem caeno alendae per novem menses. describe uterum de die in diem insolescentem, gravem, anxium, nec somno tutum, incertum libidinibus fastidii et gulae. invehere iam et in ipsum mulieris enitentis pudorem, vel pro periculo honorandum, vel pro natura religiosum. [2] horres utique et infantem cum suis impedimentis profusum, utique et oblitum. dedignaris quod pannis dirigitur, quod unctionibus formatur, quod blanditiis deridetur. hanc venerationem naturae, Marcion, despuis, et quomodo natus es? odisti nascentem hominem, et quomodo diligis aliquem? te quidem plane non amasti cum ab ecclesia et fide Christi recessisti. sed videris si tibi displices aut si aliter es natus: [3] certe Christus dilexit hominem illum in immunditiis in utero coagulatum, illum per pudenda prolatum, illum per ludibria nutritum. propter eum descendit, propter eum praedicavit, propter eum omni se humilitate deiecit usque ad mortem, et mortem crucis. amavit utique quem magno redemit. si Christus creatoris est, suum merito amavit: si ab alio deo est, magis adamavit, quando alienum redemit. amavit ergo cum homine etiam nativitatem, etiam carnem eius: nihil amari potest sine eo per quod est id quod est. [4] aut aufer nativitatem et exhibe hominem, adime carnem et praesta quem deus redemit. si haec sunt homo quem deus redemit, tu haec erubescenda illi facis qui redemit, et indigna, quae nisi dilexisset non redemisset? nativitatem reformat
a morte regeneratione caelesti, carnem ab omni vexatione restituit: leprosam emaculat, caecam reluminat, paralyticam redintegrat, demoniacam expiat, mortuam resuscitat: et nasci in illam erubescit? [5] si revera de lupa aut sue aut vacca prodire voluisset, et ferae aut pecoris corpore indutus regnum caelorum praedicaret, tua opinor illi censura praescriberet turpe hoc deo et indignum hoc dei filio, et stultum propterea qui ita credat. sit plane stultum: de nostro sensu iudicemus deum. sed circumspice, Marcion, si tamen non delesti: Stulta mundi elegit deus, ut confundat sapientia. [6] quaenam haec stulta sunt? conversio hominum ad culturam veri dei, reiectio erroris, disciplina iustitiae pudicitiae misericordiae patientiae, innocentiae omnis? haec quidem stulta non sunt. quaere ergo de quibus dixerit: et si te praesumpseris invenisse, num erit tam stultum quam credere in deum natum, et quidem ex virgine, et quidem carneum, qui per illas naturae contumelias volutatus sit? [7] dicat haec aliquis stulta non esse, et alia sint quae deus in aemulationem elegerit sapientiae saecularis: et tamen apud illam facilius creditur Iuppiter taurus factus aut cycnus, quam vere homo Christus penes Marcionem.

Well then, that which was permitted to the angels of the inferior God when changed into human corporeity, the faculty of none the less remaining angels--will you deny this to the more mighty God, as though his Christ had not the power, when truly clothed with manhood, of continuing to be God? Or did perhaps those angels too become visible as a phantasm of flesh? No, this you will not dare to say. For if in your view the Creator's angels are as Christ is, Christ will belong to that God whose angels are such as Christ is. If you had not maliciously rejected some and corrupted others of the scriptures which oppose your views, the Gospel of John would in this matter have put you to rout when it proclaims that the Spirit in the body of a dove glided down and settled upon our Lord.1 Though he was spirit he was no less truly dove than spirit, yet had not put to death his own proper substance by the assumption of a substance not his own. But, you ask, where is the body of the dove, now that the Spirit has been withdrawn into heaven? Just like the bodies of the angels, it was suppressed on the same terms on which it had also been produced. If you had seen it when it was being brought out of non-existence, you would have been aware also when it was being withdrawn into non-existence. As its beginning was not visible, neither was its ending. Yet it was a body, a body in three dimensions, at whatever moment it was visible as a body.2 That which is written cannot possibly not have been so.

4 So then, if your repudiation of embodiment is due neither to the supposition that God would find it impossible nor to the fear that it would bring him into peril, it remains for you to reject and arraign it as undignified. Beginning then with that nativity you so strongly object to, orate, attack now, the nastinesses of genital elements in the womb, the filthy curdling of moisture and blood, and of the flesh to be for nine months nourished 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 modesty 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. This natural object of reverence you, Marcion, bespittle: yet how were you born? You hate man during his birth: how can you love any man? Yourself at least you evidently did not love when you withdrew from the Church and the faith of Christ. But it is your own concern if you are an object of displeasure to yourself, or if you were born some other way. Christ, there is no doubt of it, did care for the sort of man who was curdled in uncleannesses in the womb, who was brought forth through organs immodest, who took nourishment through organs of ridicule. For his sake he came down, for his sake he preached the gospel, for his sake he cast himself down in all humility even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.1 Evidently he loved him: for he redeemed him at a great price.2 If Christ belongs to the Creator, with good reason he loved his own: if he is from another god his love was even greater, in that he loved one who was not his own. In any case, along with man he loved also his nativity, and his flesh besides: nothing can be loved apart from that by which it is what it is. Else you must remove nativity and show me man, you must take away flesh and present to me him whom God has redeemed. If these are the constituents of man whom God has redeemed, who are you to make them a cause of shame to him who redeemed them, or to make them beneath his dignity, when he would not have redeemed them unless he had loved them? Nativity he reshapes from death by a heavenly regeneration, flesh he restores from every distress: leprous he cleanses it, blind he restores its sight, palsied he makes it whole again, devil-possessed he atones for it, dead he brings it again to life: is he ashamed to be born into it? If indeed it had been his will to come forth of a she-wolf or a sow or a cow, and, clothed with the body of a wild or a domestic animal, he were to preach the kingdom of heaven, your censorship I suppose would make for him a ruling that this is a disgrace to God, that this is beneath the dignity of the Son of God, and consequently that any man is a fool who so believes. A fool, yes certainly: let us judge God in accordance with our own sentiments. But look about you, Marcion, if indeed you have not deleted the passage: God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, that he may put to shame the things that are wise? What are these foolish things? The conversion of men to the worship of the true God, the rejection of error, instruction in righteousness, in chastity, in mercy, in patience, and in all manner of innocency? No, these are not foolish things. Inquire then to what things he did refer: and if you presume you have discovered them, can any of them be so foolish as belief in God who was born, born moreover of a virgin, born with a body of flesh, God who has wallowed through those reproaches of nature? Let someone say these are not foolish things: suppose
it to be other things which God has chosen for opposition to the wisdom of the world--and yet, the professors of this world's wisdom find it easier to believe that Jupiter became a bull or a swan than Marcion finds it to believe that Christ veritably became man.

[Secret Alias]

Let's go section by section after the example of "Abraham and Lot" and the angels (and Jacob too). In Against Marcion in what immediately follows we see a statement from Tertullian which is entirely illogical. As we saw, in contrast to On the Flesh of Christ, where Marcion's opinions ARE DEVELOPED from his 'former life' in Judaism, Against Marcion went out of its way to add the idea that Marcion wholly invented Jesus/Man's phantasma flesh. But if that were true why does almost the very next line have Marcion appeal to the 'Jewish angels' for support?:

For by how much you make your god a better and more perfect being, by just so much will all examples be unsuitable to him of that God from whom he totally differs, and without which difference he would not be at all better or more perfect. [2] But then, secondly, you must know that it will not be conceded to you, that in the angels there was only a putative flesh, but one of a true and solid human substance. For if (on your terms) it was no difficulty to him to manifest true sensations and actions in a putative flesh, it was much more easy for him still to have assigned the true substance of flesh to these true sensations and actions, as the proper maker and former thereof.

For, the more superior and the more perfect the character of the god you are commending, the more unbecoming to him are evidences belonging to that other: for unless he is entirely diverse from him he cannot be in any sense better or more perfect. Secondly, take note besides that we do not admit your claim that in those angels the flesh was putative: it was of veritable and complete human substance. For if it was not difficult for God to display true perceptions and activities in putative flesh, much easier did he find it to provide true perceptions and activities with true substance of flesh, the more so as he is himself its particular creator and maker.

Nam et quanto meliorem et perfectiorem deum inducis, tanto non competunt illi eius exempla quo nisi diversus in totum non erit omnino melior atque perfectior. [2] Dehinc scito nec illud concedi tibi, ut putativa fuerit in angelis caro, sed verae et solidae substantiae humanae. Si enim difficile non fuit illi putativae carnis veros et sensus et actus exhibere, multo facilius habuit veris et sensibus et actibus veram dedisse substantiam carnis, vel qua proprius auctor et artifex eius.

Clearly both Against Marcion and On the Flesh of Christ are borrowing from a source which acknowledges that Marcion used the flesh of the 'Jewish angels' to support Jesus/Man being a similar phantasma (just like Josephus).

In On the Flesh of Christ there is a clear manipulation of an underlying source for we read:

Well then, that which was permitted to the angels of the inferior God when changed into human corporeity, the faculty of none the less remaining angels--will you deny this to the more mighty God, as though his Christ had not the power, when truly clothed with manhood, of continuing to be God? Or did perhaps those angels too become visible as a phantasm of flesh? No, this you will not dare to say. For if in your view the Creator's angels are as Christ is, Christ will belong to that God whose angels are such as Christ is.

[7] quod ergo angelis inferioris dei licuit conversis in corpulentiam humanam, ut angeli nihilominus permanerent, hoc tu potentiori deo auferes, quasi non valuerit Christus eius vere hominem indutus deus perseverare? aut numquid et angeli illi phantasma carnis apparuerunt? sed non audebis hoc dicere: nam si sic apud te angeli creatoris sicut et Christus, eius dei erit Christus cuius angeli tales qualis et Christus.

The fact that Tertullian has Marcion deny here that the 'Jewish angels' have the same phantasmic body as Jesus/Man is not the end of the debate. Clearly the parallel section of Against Marcion confirms that the Marcionites DID appeal to the 'Jewish angels' "Dehinc scito nec illud concedi tibi, ut putativa fuerit in angelis caro, sed verae et solidae substantiae humanae."

The underlying parallels between the two reports:

Against Marcion "(angelis) meliorem et perfectiorem deum" vs On the Flesh of Christ "angelis inferioris dei"
"putativa fuerit in angelis caro" vs "angeli illi phantasma carnis apparuerunt"

[Secret Alias]

In On the Flesh of Christ "the gospel of John" is mentioned which appears to be a general reference to the testimony of John the Baptist viz. "spiritum
columbae corpore lapsum desedisse super dominum" which was apparently also (there is a list in the previous chapter) is missing from the Marcionite gospel. Against Marcion has instead a lengthy continuation of the original material where 'other heretics' are introduced so the debate about whether angels had 'real flesh' or 'supernatural flesh' as the Marcionites contended:

There are yet other heretics, who state that if in the angels that flesh had been truly human it would have needed to pass through human birth: to these we give in answer a firm reason why it was both truly human yet exempt from birth. It was truly human for the sake of the truth of God, who is a stranger to all lying and deceit, and because <the angels> could not have been received by men on human terms if they had not been in human substance: yet it had not passed through birth because Christ alone had the right to become incarnate of human flesh, so that he might reform our nativity by his own nativity, and thus also loose the bands of our death by his own death, by rising again in that flesh in which he was born with intent to be able to die. For this reason he too on that occasion appeared along with the angels in Abraham's presence, in flesh veritable indeed though not yet born, because it was not yet to die, though it was even then learning to hold converse among men. Even more so the angels, who were never by God's intention to die for us, had no need to receive their brief experience of flesh by means of birth, because they were not intending to lay it down by means of death: yet from wheresoever it was they acquired it, and in whatsoever manner they finally disposed of it, they certainly did not tell lies about it. If the Creator maketh his angels spirits and his attendants a flaming fire,c no less truly spirits than truly fire, he is the same who also made them truly flesh, so that we may now set it on record, and report back to the heretics, that the promise of some time reforming men into angels is made by that <God> who of old time formed angels into men.

There is so much to unpack here it is difficult to imagine anyone making sense of this:

1. Irenaeus (Adv Haer 3) introduces the idea (apparently for the first time) that Christ had to be born from a Virgin so as to make the Son of God truly a Son of Man. The heretics are apparently reacting to that idea (or possibly advocating it i.e. are followers of Irenaeus).
2. Tertullian denies here that the angels were of another substance but argues throughout that they were actually in the flesh - a ridiculous position that no one has ever held. Why does he hold it? Apparently to counter the Marcionites.
3. He brings up again Genesis 18 where the Marcionites (or 'other heretics' if you believe it) hold that the angels were phantasms but according to his estimation God and angels were of real flesh.
4. he emphasizes again that just because scripture says that the angels were fire it doesn't preclude that they were also of flesh.

[ABuddhist]

2. Tertullian denies here that the angels were of another substance but argues throughout that they were actually in the flesh - a ridiculous position that no one has ever held. Why does he hold it? Apparently to counter the Marcionites.
3. He brings up again Genesis 18 where the Marcionites (or 'other heretics' if you believe it) hold that the angels were phantasms but according to his estimation God and angels were of real flesh.
4. he emphasizes again that just because scripture says that the angels were fire it doesn't preclude that they were also of flesh.

Fascinating. Are you aware that Mormonism also teaches that God is flesh? And did later Christians condemn Tertullian for these claims?

[Secret Alias]

Thank you. The problem is that people love to kill the Jew, the witch or whatever. "Marcion has these crazy ideas. Ha ha ha." But what's the explanation to passages where God looks, talks and acts like a man?

[lsayre]

Even if Jesus was born of a woman, there is absolutely no way by which he was born fully human if his father was a/the/some... God.

[ABuddhist]

But what's the explanation to passages where God looks, talks and acts like a man?

From my debates with Christians, I have learned that they tend to ignore the literal meaning of whatever passage is inconvenient to them - including these passages. Some are better at justifying this choice than others are, of course.

[Secret Alias]

The point of this exercise is to overcome the apparent "evidence" in Tertullian that contradicts the argument that Marcion's understanding of Jesus/Man as phantasma DID NOT come from Jewish sources like Josephus. To recapitulate:

Adv Marc 3.7 From a lost work by Justin Martyr which also appears at the conclusion of Tertullian's Against the Jews (Discat nunc haereticus ex abundanti cum ipso licebit Iudaeo rationem quoque errorum eius, a quo ducatum mutuatus in hac argumentatione caecus a caeco in eandem decidit foveam (It is now possible for the heretic to learn, and the Jew as well, what he ought to know already, the reason for the Jew's errors: for from the Jew the heretic has accepted guidance in this discussion, the blind borrowing from the blind, and has fallen into the same ditch). The point of the discussion is to confirm the name Man:

Concerning this advent the same prophet [Daniel] speaks: And behold, one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, came even to the Ancient of days: he was in his presence: and the attendants brought him forward, and there was given to him royal power, and all nations of the earth after their kinds, and all glory to serve <him>, and his power even for ever, that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom, that shall not be destroyed:f then, it means, he will have an honourable appearance, and beauty unfading, more than the sons of men. For it says, Fairer in beauty beyond the sons of men; grace is poured forth in thy lips; therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. Gird the sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty in thy worshipfulness and thy beauty.g Then also the Father, now that he has made him a little lower than the angels, will crown him with glory and honour, and will put all things beneath his feet. Then those who pierced him will know who he is, and will smite their breasts, tribe to tribe— because in fact they formerly failed to recognize him in the humility of human condition: And he is a man, says Jeremiah, and who shall know him?h Because also, Isaiah says, His nativity, who shall tell of it?

But then there is a new argument that emerges that the specific Marcionite understanding of 'Man' as a phantasma IS NOT BORROWED from the Jews (as we saw at the beginning of 3.7) but something wholly of Marcion's own invention:

Adv Marc 3.8.1 Desinat nunc haereticus a Iudaeo, aspis quod aiunt a vipera, mutuari venenum, evomat iam hinc proprii ingenii virus, phantasma vindicans Christum (Now let the heretic cease from the Jew, the wasp, as they say, from the viper, to borrow poison; he now spews out from here the poison of his own character, a phantom vindicating Christ).

Adv Marc 3.8.2 - a lengthy justification for claiming that Marcion invented the phantasma Man (which we know he did not - it comes from Jewish sources as we saw in 3.7)

Adv Marc 3.9.1 In ista quaestione qui putaveris opponendos esse nobis angelos creatoris, quasi et illi in phantasmate, putativae utique carnis egerint apud Abraham et Loth, et tamen vere sint et congressi et pasti et operati quod mandatum eis fuerat, primo non admitteris ad eius dei exempla quem destruis. (If in this inquiry you think you can set against me the Creator's angels, alleging that they also, when in converse with Abraham and Lot,a were in a phantasm, evidently of putative flesh, and yet really met with them, and partook of food, and performed the task committed to them, <my answer will be> first, that you have no claim upon the evidences of that God whom you are concerned to depose). The parallel section in De Carne Christi confirms that Marcion did learn his phantasma Man from Jewish sources - alioquin par erit eorum quae conversa amittunt quod fuerunt, quorum utique deus in omnibus par non est: sic nec in exitu conversionis. angelos creatoris conversos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse veritatem ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham et manibus ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth, conluctatus quoque homini angelus toto corporis pondere dimitti desideraverit, adeo detinebatur (You have read at one time, and believed it, that the Creator's angels were changed into human shape, and that the bodies they were clothed with were of such verity that Abraham washed their feet, and that by their hands Lot was snatched away from the men of Sodom,1 and an angel also having wrestled with a man with the whole weight of his body desired to be let go, so fast was he held).

Everything about this section confirms that the original argument of the Marcionites was that Jesus/Man was the angel who visited Abraham, wrestled with Jacob (= Josephus's phantasma was Marcion's phantasma)

[Secret Alias]

And the list of source material in Adversus Marcionem 3:

Chapters 1 - 6 Papias's Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις
Chapter 7 a common ancestor (undoubtedly from Justin Martyr) with Against the Jews 14
Chapter 8
Chapter 9 - 11 a common ancestor with On the Flesh of Christ
Chapter 12 - 14 a common ancestor (undoubtedly from Justin Martyr) with Against the Jews 9
Chapter 15 - 17 ?
Chapter 18 - 19 a common ancestor (undoubtedly from Justin Martyr) with Against the Jews 10
Chapter 20 a common ancestor (undoubtedly from Justin Martyr) with Against the Jews 12
Chapter 21
Chapter 22 a common ancestor (undoubtedly from Justin Martyr) with Against the Jews 11
Chapter 23 a continuation of ideas from chapters 1 - 6
Chapter 24 a common ancestor (undoubtedly from Justin Martyr) with Against the Jews 11 (Ezekiel)

Let's look at the ideas in the last chapter after the repetition of Ezekiel to see that they actually segue quite nicely into Chapter 9.

But be sure for the future that the Creator has in fact prophesied of that kingdom, and that even without prophecy it had a claim on the belief of such as belong to the Creator. What do you think? When, after that first promise by which it is to be as the sand for multitude, Abraham's seed is also designed to be as the number of the stars, are not these the intimations of an earthly as well as a heavenly dispensation? When Isaac blesses his son Jacob with the words, God give to thee of the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the earth, are not these indications of both kinds of bounty? In fact one must here take note even of the structure of the blessing itself. For in respect of Jacob, who is the type of God's later and more honourable people, that is, of ourselves, the first promise is of the dew of heaven, the second of the fatness of the earth. For we ourselves are first invited to heavenly <blessings> when we are rent away from the world, and so it appears afterwards that we are also to obtain earthly ones. Also your own gospel has, Seek ye fast the kingdom of God, and these things shall be added unto you. But to Esau he promises an earthly blessing, and appends a heavenly one, when he says, Thy habitation shall be from the fatness of the earth and from the dew of heaven. For the Jew's covenant is in Esau, as they are the sons prior by birth but inferior in affection, and having begun with earthly benefits through the law, is afterwards by an act of faith led to heavenly things through the gospel. But when Jacob dreams of a ladder set firm on earth up to heaven, and of angels some ascending and others descending, and of the Lord standing above it, shall we perchance be rash in our interpretation that by this ladder it is indicated that a road to heaven, by which some arrive there, but from which others fall away, has been set up by the Lord's judgement? Why then, when he had woken up and had at first been shaken by the dread of the place, did he betake himself to an interpretation of the dream? Having said, How dreadful is this place, he adds, This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. For he had seen Christ the Lord, who is the temple of God and also the gate, for by him we enter heaven. And certainly he would not have mentioned a gate of heaven if in the Creator's dispensation there were no entry into heaven. But there is a gate which lets us in, and a way which leads us there, already laid down by Christ. Of him Amos says, Who buildeth up his ascent into heaven,i surely not for himself alone, but also for those of his who will be with him. And thou shalt bind them upon thee, it says, like adornment upon a bride.j Thus at those who by that ascent are making their way to heavenly kingdoms, the Spirit marvels, saying, They fly as those that are hawks, as the clouds fly, and as the nestlings of doves, towards me, meaning, in simplicity, like doves. For we shall be taken up into the clouds to meet the Lord,l the apostle says, when that Son of man, of whom Daniel speaks,m comes in the clouds, and so shall we ever be with the Lord, so long as he is both on earth and in heaven: and, because of the ungrateful of both promises, he calls even the very elements to witness, Hear O heaven, and give ear O earth.

For my part, even though the scripture did not so often hold out to me the hand of heavenly hope, so as to give me sufficient reason to expect this promise too, yet because I am already in possession of earthly grace, I should be in expectation also of something from heaven, from God who is the God of heaven as he is of earth. So I should believe that the Christ who promises higher things is the Christ of him who had also promised things more lowly, of him who by small things had given proof of things greater, who also had reserved for Christ alone this proclamation of a kingdom unheard of—if it was unheard of—so that earthly glory should be spoken of by servants, but heavenly glory by God himself. You however argue for another Christ, even from the fact that he tells of a new kingdom. You need first to cite some instance of kindness given, or else I shall have good reason to doubt the credibility of so great a promise as you affirm is to be hoped for. In fact before all else you need to prove that he who you profess promises heavenly things, has any heaven of his own. As things are, you are giving invitations to dinner, but not showing at which house: you are telling of a kingdom, but not pointing out the palace. Is this because your Christ promises a heavenly kingdom when he has no heaven, in the same way as he made profession of humanity without having a body? What a phantasm it all is! What a hollow pretence of so great a promise!

I wonder whether the original treatise written by Papias (and which Tertullian is demonstrated to have 'jumbled' completely out of its original order simply had the material from chapter 9 immediately follow this material at the end:

For we do profess that even on earth a kingdom is promised us:2 but this is before we come to heaven, and in a different polity—in fact after the resurrection, for a thousand years, in that city of God's building, Jerusalem brought down from heaven, which the apostle declares is our mother on high: and when he affirms that our politeuma, our citizenship, is in heaven, he is evidently locating it in some heavenly city. This is the city which Ezekiel knows, and the apostle John has seen: and the word of the new prophecy, which is attached to our faith, bears witness to it, having even prophesied that for a sign there would also be an image of the city made present to view, before its actual manifestation. This prophecy was recently fulfilled, during the expedition to the East: for it is admitted, even on heathen men's evidence, that in Judaea for forty days there was a city suspended from the sky at the break of morning, that the whole fashion of the ramparts faded out asday advanced, and at other times it suddenly disappeared. This city we affirm has been provided by God for the reception of the saints by resurrection, and for their refreshment with abundance of all blessings—spiritual ones—in compensation for those which in this world we have either refused or been denied. For it is both just, and worthy of God, that his servants should also have joy in that place where they have suffered affliction in his name. This is the manner of the heavenly kingdom: within the space of its thousand years is comprised the resurrection of the saints, who arise either earlier or later according to their deserts: after which, when the destruction of the world and the fire of judgement have been set in motion, we shall be changed in a moment into angelic substance, by virtue of that supervesture of incorruption,b and be translated into that heavenly kingdom, the same that you now bring under discussion as though it had not been prophesied in the Creator's scriptures, and it were thereby proved that Christ belongs to that other god by whom first and by whom alone you say it has been revealed.

But be sure for the future that the Creator has in fact prophesied of that kingdom, and that even without prophecy it had a claim on the belief of such as belong to the Creator. What do you think? When, after that first promise by which it is to be as the sand for multitude, Abraham's seed is also designed to be as the number of the stars, are not these the intimations of an earthly as well as a heavenly dispensation? When Isaac blesses his son Jacob with the words, God give to thee of the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the earth, are not these indications of both kinds of bounty? In fact one must here take note even of the structure of the blessing itself. For in respect of Jacob, who is the type of God's later and more honourable people, that is, of ourselves, the first promise is of the dew of heaven, the second of the fatness of the earth. For we ourselves are first invited to heavenly <blessings> when we are rent away from the world, and so it appears afterwards that we are also to obtain earthly ones. Also your own gospel has, Seek ye fast the kingdom of God, and these things shall be added unto you. But to Esau he promises an earthly blessing, and appends a heavenly one, when he says, Thy habitation shall be from the fatness of the earth and from the dew of heaven. For the Jew's covenant is in Esau, as they are the sons prior by birth but inferior in affection, and having begun with earthly benefits through the law, is afterwards by an act of faith led to heavenly things through the gospel. But when Jacob dreams of a ladder set firm on earth up to heaven, and of angels some ascending and others descending, and of the Lord standing above it, shall we perchance be rash in our interpretation that by this ladder it is indicated that a road to heaven, by which some arrive there, but from which others fall away, has been set up by the Lord's judgement? Why then, when he had woken up and had at first been shaken by the dread of the place, did he betake himself to an interpretation of the dream? Having said, How dreadful is this place, he adds, This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. For he had seen Christ the Lord, who is the temple of God and also the gate, for by him we enter heaven. And certainly he would not have mentioned a gate of heaven if in the Creator's dispensation there were no entry into heaven. But there is a gate which lets us in, and a way which leads us there, already laid down by Christ. Of him Amos says, Who buildeth up his ascent into heaven,i surely not for himself alone, but also for those of his who will be with him. And thou shalt bind them upon thee, it says, like adornment upon a bride.j Thus at those who by that ascent are making their way to heavenly kingdoms, the Spirit marvels, saying, They fly as those that are hawks, as the clouds fly, and as the nestlings of doves, towards me, meaning, in simplicity, like doves. For we shall be taken up into the clouds to meet the Lord,l the apostle says, when that Son of man, of whom Daniel speaks,m comes in the clouds, and so shall we ever be with the Lord, so long as he is both on earth and in heaven: and, because of the ungrateful of both promises, he calls even the very elements to witness, Hear O heaven, and give ear O earth.

For my part, even though the scripture did not so often hold out to me the hand of heavenly hope, so as to give me sufficient reason to expect this promise too, yet because I am already in possession of earthly grace, I should be in expectation also of something from heaven, from God who is the God of heaven as he is of earth. So I should believe that the Christ who promises higher things is the Christ of him who had also promised things more lowly, of him who by small things had given proof of things greater, who also had reserved for Christ alone this proclamation of a kingdom unheard of—if it was unheard of—so that earthly glory should be spoken of by servants, but heavenly glory by God himself. You however argue for another Christ, even from the fact that he tells of a new kingdom. You need first to cite some instance of kindness given, or else I shall have good reason to doubt the credibility of so great a promise as you affirm is to be hoped for. In fact before all else you need to prove that he who you profess promises heavenly things, has any heaven of his own. As things are, you are giving invitations to dinner, but not showing at which house: you are telling of a kingdom, but not pointing out the palace. Is this because your Christ promises a heavenly kingdom when he has no heaven, in the same way as he made profession of humanity without having a body? What a phantasm it all is! What a hollow pretence of so great a promise!

If in this inquiry you think you can set against me the Creator's angels, alleging that they also, when in converse with Abraham and Lot, were in a phantasm, evidently of putative flesh, and yet really met with them, and partook of food, and performed the task committed to them, <my answer will be> first, that you have no claim upon the evidences of that God whom you are concerned to depose. For, the more superior and the more perfect the character of the god you are commending, the more unbecoming to him are evidences belonging to that other: for unless he is entirely diverse from him he cannot be in any sense better or more perfect. Secondly, take note besides that we do not admit your claim that in those angels the flesh was putative: it was of veritable and complete human substance. For if it was not difficult for God to display true perceptions and activities in putative flesh, much easier did he find it to provide true perceptions and activities with true substance of flesh, the more so as he is himself its particular creator and maker.

In other words one of the reasons why Tertullian is identified as a Montanist is because he was repurposing treatises by Papias in this manner. The original Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις was directed against Marcion not Mark.