Adversus Marcionem I — Indicators of Possible Dependence on Earlier Anti-Marcionite Work

Feature in Text	Description in Passage	Structural / Redactional Signal	Parallel with Irenaean Method or Anti-Heretical Tradition	Why This Could Suggest Use of Earlier Source (e.g., Irenaeus or Shared Dossier)
Pontus ethnographic invective (1.1.3–1.1.5)	Extended satirical description of Pontus culminating in rhetorical comparisons before doctrinal shift	Looks detachable; rhetorical wrapper preceding doctrinal argument	Irenaeus frequently opens with characterization of heresiarchs using ethnographic or moral framing	Invective reads like prefabricated polemical block that could be attached to inherited doctrinal core
Programmatic “praescriptio” and procedural framing (1.1.7)	Reference to separate libellus handling prescription; emphasis on regula and principalis quaestio	Signals standardized anti-heretical methodology rather than ad hoc argument	Irenaeus structures refutation by laying down rule/framework before refuting system	Suggests author working within inherited heresiological toolkit already established in earlier literature
Declaration of generic “principal question” (1.3.1)	Dispute framed broadly as whether two gods may exist	Highly schematic framing; handbook-like abstraction	Similar reductionist framing in Irenaeus’ refutation strategy	Generic framing indicates reuse of established anti-dualist schema rather than fresh controversy-specific argument
Portable maxim “Deus si non unus est, non est”	Slogan-like formula repeated across argument	Maxim-like statements often mark reusable argumentative modules	Irenaeus uses aphoristic formulations summarizing orthodoxy vs heresy	Portable slogan suggests inherited argumentative shorthand
“Regula summi magni” syllogistic chains (1.3–1.7)	Mechanical logical derivations defining God as unique summum magnum	Reads like pre-formed “school proof”	Irenaeus frequently relies on definitional logic about divine unity	Abstract logical engine independent of Marcion-specific exegesis suggests earlier philosophical anti-dualist module
Modular self-signposting (“nunc…,” “haesisti…,” segment closures)	Clear boundaries between argumentative sections	Compilation-like transitions between units	Similar staged refutation sequences in Irenaeus	Signals movement through pre-arranged outline rather than organic continuous composition
Procedural “incerta ad certorum normam” method (1.9)	Unknown god must be tested by known realities	Methodological rule rather than new data	Irenaeus emphasizes methodological refutation based on apostolic rule	Appears as transferable disputation principle characteristic of inherited apologetic tradition
“God known by works” commonplace (1.11)	Stock exempla and rhetorical comparisons (Triptolemus, benefits, artifacts)	Density of exempla suggests rhetorical commonplace tradition	Natural theology arguments common in Irenaeus and earlier apologetic material	May represent adaptation of earlier anti-heretical or anti-pagan rhetorical inventory
Natural theology declamation (1.13–1.14)	Long catalogue of philosophers and natural examples	Looks like independent rhetorical set-piece	Similar declamatory sections appear in heresiological tradition	Detachable rhetorical inventory typical of reused material blocks
“Creator’s material economy” trope (1.14.3–1.14.5)	Argument that rival Christ depends on creator’s materials	Highly stylized argument block	Comparable thematic logic in earlier anti-Marcion traditions	Rhythmic parallelism suggests portable anti-Marcion polemic unit
Counting reductio (15.2–15.6)	Multiplication of gods via place/matter logic	Algorithmic refutation independent of context	Standard anti-dualist strategy in earlier polemic	Predicate-based logical machine likely inherited philosophical commonplace
Predicate pack (“innatus / infectus / aeternus”)	Repeated definitional cluster	Formulaic conceptual toolkit	Similar definitional reasoning in Irenaeus’ anti-gnostic arguments	Suggests reliance on established doctrinal vocabulary rather than unique composition
Alternation between dated polemic and timeless philosophy	Temporal references vs abstract metaphysics	Indicates layered composition	Irenaeus mixes historical polemic with systematic theology	Suggests older argumentative kernels wrapped in contemporary framing
Antitheses dossier summary (19.4–19.5)	Presentation of Marcion’s program in schematic form	Reads like summary of known heresiological file	Irenaeus organizes heresies through system summaries	Likely derived from established anti-Marcion tradition
Appeal to apostolic churches (21.4–21.5)	Tradition located in public churches	Core anti-heretical criterion	Signature Irenaean argument structure	Methodological continuity with Irenaeus suggests shared or inherited template
Editorial self-history (1.1.1–1.1.2)	Claims of lost earlier versions, revisions, additions	Strong redactional awareness	Comparable multi-layer transmission known in early anti-heretical works	Explicit acknowledgment of recomposition creates context for incorporation of earlier materials