| De Carne Christi |
Article Index for De |
Website Links For Christi |
Information AboutDe Carne Christi |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT DE CARNE CHRISTI | |
| religious studies books | |
|
De Carne Christi is a Polemic al work against the Gnostic Docetism of Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus and Alexander. He proves that the body of Christ was a real human body, taken from the virginal body of Mary , but not by way of human procreation. CONTENT The top-level structure of the work is as follows (from Mahé's edition). 1. Exordium (c. 1:1-2). a. To believe in the resurrection of the flesh is meaningless unless there is belief that Christ had flesh (1). b. The debate is limited to the bodily nature of Christ, and three questions about it: an est (did it exist); unde est (where did it come from); cuiusmodi est (of what sort was it). (2) 2. An est? Response of Tertullian: est (cc. 1:2-5:10). 2.1 Argument by praescriptio (ch. 2) -- Marcion falsified the scriptures, so plainly his argument is not based on the original facts. 2.2 Response to the objections of the other side (3:1-5:5) 2.3 Peroration: Proof of the two natures of Christ. 3. Unde est? Response of Tertullian: e terra (cc.6-9) 3.1 Refutation of scriptural arguments of the heretics (6:3-7:13) 3.2 Internal contradictions of the teaching of Apelles 3.3 Peroration. 4. Cuiusmodi est? Response of Tertullian: humana (cc.10-23) 4.1 The human nature of Christ (cc.15-16) 4.1.1 Refutation of heretical teachings (10:1-15:2) 4.1.2 Response to many heretical objections to the Christian teaching (15:3-16:5) 4.2 The human nature of the birth of Christ (cc. 17-23) 4.2.1 Necessity of the virgin birth 4.2.2 Response to the objections of those heretics who think the virgin didn't really give her flesh to Christ. 4.2.3 Conclusion: the sign of the Virgin (c. 23) 4.3 Peroration (cc.24-25). One portion of special interest, because of the frequent mis-citation of De Carne Christi 5: 4, is point 2.2, broken by Mahé as follows: In 2.2, the objections of the other side are considered: 1. Is the incarnation impossible for God? (3:1-3). Answer: nothing is impossible for God (1). But God would certainly not pretend to be born when he was not (2-3). 2. Is the incarnation not dangerous for God (3:4-6). If God was really changed into a man, objects the heretic, he would cease to be God (4-5). Answer: not at all. Unlike those he made, God can become anything while remaining himself (5-6). The answer to these two objections is illustrated by the example of the angels of the OT, and the cloud that descended at the baptism of Jesus. That which is possible for these higher creatures is certainly possible for their creator (3:6-9) 3. If the incarnation isn't impossible, or dangerous, is not nevertheless unworthy of the dignity of God? (4:1-5:5) Tertullian admits that it is unworthy/shameful in the eyes of the world, but he justifies this shame. a. The incarnation is an act of love which voluntarily ignores worldly wisdom (c.4); the hate of Marcion for the flesh implies hate of himself and humanity; contrariwise, the love of Christ for man implies acceptance of his flesh without which man cannot exist (4:1-4). Christ could have taken the form of a beast to preach the true wisdom and 'chose the foolish things of the world to shame the things that are wise' (Phil.2:8) -- the choice of 'foolish' flesh is part of his conscious rejection of conventional wisdom. b. Without true incarnation, there can be no true redemption (5:1-5). Logically, the heretic should have suppressed both the passion and resurrection in his gospel (5:1-3). God must have flesh, in order to have a real death and real resurrection (5:3-5). |
|
|