マルキオンと仮現論 : 用語phantasmaをめぐって

スポンサーリンク

概要

• 論文の詳細を見る

• Marcion, a Christian heretic in the second century A. D., is known as a docetist. This is closely related with the widely-accepted assumption that he used a special term, phantasma, with regard to the body of Jesus Christ. Admittedly, there is an exclusive connection between Marcion and the term phantasma. On the one hand, we know nobody else among his contemporaries who referred to the body of Jesus by this term. On the other hand, a number of Early Church Fathers speak of Marcion's phantasma so frequently that it is virtually impossible to deny that he has actually used the term for Jesus Christ. And Tertullian, by far the most important source of information about Marcion/Marcionites, knew two interpretations of phantasma : (a)vision, an noncorporeal entity that can be seen and heard, but cannot be touched ; (b)something comparable to the body of the angels who appeared to Abraham and Lot and associated with them just like normal human beings(cf. Gen 18-19). This juxtaposition of two essentially different interpretations indicates clearly that the term phantasma itself, at least, was not an invention by Tertullian, but a special word actually used by Marcion himself. However, if we investigate Marcion's own texts, i. e. his canon(Evangelium, Apostolicum) and Antitheses, we come to an unexpected conclusion : Nowhere can we find a clearly and directly docetic element in them, as far as reliable textual reconstruction is possible. On the contrary, there are a lot of "nondocetic" passages which show that Jesus undoubtedly had a tangible body(which contradicts the meaning(a) of phantasma ; see below). The word phantasma itself does not appear anywhere apart from Evangelium (Lk)24 : 37. In this verse, according to Tertullian, Marcion's text reads phantasma (cf. also Adamantius/Rufinus) instead of pneuma. But we should not accept this report without qualification. First, it is not a literal quotation. Tertullian may well have employed an anti-Marcionite cliche here, as he often does. Secondly, Jesus' disciples, who think he is a "phantasma", are not praised but scolded by Jesus himself in the following verses. Further, this reading destroys the contextual relation with v. 39, where pneuma is undoubtedly retained in Marcion's text. Last but not the least, this Jesus is the so-called resurrected one, not the proper subject of docetism. For these various reasons, we cannot consider this verse to be sufficient evidence for Marcion's phantasma-docetism. We must conclude, therefore, that neither docetism nor the term phantasma is clearly to be found in Marcion's own texts. To explain this contradiction, we must introduce the perspective of chronological development in Marcion : His phantasma-docetism belongs to his "pre-canonical" times. Although the "post-canonical" Marcion did not positively use the term any longer, the polemical cliche against it remained in use on the side of the orthodox church. As regards the two meanings of phantasma attested in Tertullian(see above), (a)must certainly be older than(b). (b)appears to be an alternative, ad hoc explanation given by the post-canonical Marcion or more probably Marcionites, who wanted to remove the discrepancy between their canon and the phantasma-docetism. in the meaning(a). A relationship in the reverse order, i. e. a development from(b)to(a), is hardly imaginable. As a matter of course, it does not necessarily mean that(a)was the original meaning in which Marcion used the term phantasma. This remains an open to debate. Our argument is based on the assumption of a critical change in Marcion. "Critical change" does not mean here a conversion from one definite, ready-made system of belief to another. Rather, it is creation of a new paradigm, which is usually preceded by a long, chaotic period of preparation. There is no doubt that the pre-canonical Marcion did not have any original system of belief. And what is more, nobody among his contemporary Christian heretics(e. g. Menander, Basilides, Valentin/Valentinians) had a definite system of belief at that time(i. e. before ca. A. D. 140). They were all searching for a new theology of their own. Strikingly enough, they began their particular activities independently almost all at the same time (i. e. ca. A. D. 140-160). What brought about this universal breakthrough is beyond the scope of this study. Anyway, in the preceding period characterized by the absence of a particular theoretical system of belief, everyone was exposed to the chaos of various religious ideas, including docetic ones (attested from as early as ca. A. D. 100). Thus, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that Marcion had, in his pre-canonical times, once positively accepted docetism, using the term phantasma.

• 日本西洋古典学会の論文
• 1996-03-15

著者

• 筒井 賢治

  新潟大学超域研究機構

関連論文

• ウェルギリウス『アエネーイス』結びの問題 : 和解か復讐か (成城大学における西洋古典学研究)
• ウェルギリウス『アエネーイス』結びの問題--和解か復讐か (特集 成城大学における西洋古典学研究)
• キリスト教グノーシスにおける「霊」と「肉」 : 『ペトロの黙示録』(NHC VII,3)からの考察
• 『ユダの福音書』の成り立ち : ユダの位置づけをめぐる考察
• マルキオンのいわゆる『対立論』について--『アダマンティオスの対話』から
• ミヌキウス・フェッリクス『オクタウィウス』の文学史的な位置づけについて--影響史的・受容史的な側面から
• マルキオンと仮現論 : 用語phantasmaをめぐって
• アテナゴラスにおける「オルフェウス教」伝承

スポンサーリンク