Adversus Marcionem IV.1 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His Redacted Luke

Irenaeus (III, 12.12) Tertullian (IV.1) …secundum Lucam autem Evangelium, et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes, haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt… “But curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they say that these alone are legitimate which they themselves have reduced.” Omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impii atque sacrilegi Marcionis ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit. “We direct every argument and every preparation against the impious and sacrilegious Marcion to his own gospel itself, which he made his own by altering it.” …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “From those things which they still preserve among themselves we will refute them.” …sed multo opportunius in ipso et cum ipso evangelio cui procurant retunderentur… “…but far more suitably they are to be refuted in the very gospel itself and together with the gospel which they defend…” …quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes… “…not recognizing some [Scriptures] at all…” …dotem quandam commentatus est illi… Antitheses cognominatum… ad separationem legis et evangelii coactum… “…he even devised a sort of dowry for it… a work called Antitheses… forced into separating law and gospel…” …haec sola legitima esse dicunt… “…they claim that these alone are legitimate…” Quid differentiam rerum ad distantiam interpretaris potestatum? quid antitheses exemplorum distorques adversus creatorem… “Why do you interpret differences of things as separation of powers? why do you twist the antitheses of examples against the Creator…” …ex his… arguemus eos… “…from these… we will refute them…” Haec erit lex… novum testamentum… compendiatum est enim novum testamentum… “This will be the law… the new covenant… for the new testament has been abridged…”

Passage Unit Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) Structural / Irenaean Method Signals Redaction & Dependence Assessment IV.1.1–3 Programmatic opening: whole controversy brought to test within Marcion’s Gospel (i.e. redacted Luke) Refutation conducted inside opponent’s retained gospel; procedural framing matching “refute from retained text” strategy HIGH — reads like inherited methodological preface; forensic Latin tone likely Tertullian overlay. Opening explicitly brings Marcion’s system to the test of his own Gospel  IV.1.4–8 Initial dismantling of Antitheses by showing continuity between Law and Gospel Salvation-history continuity; scriptural demonstration rather than abstract philosophy HIGH — dense testimonia block suggests pre-existing anti-Marcion proof packet IV.1.9–11 Creator predicted “newness”; collapse of two-god inference Sequential prophetic catena; ordered proof logic HIGH — rapid citation chain with minimal exposition indicates dossier-like material IV.1.12–14 Logical reduction (difference ≠ opposition) Heresiological contradiction-by-distinction method MEDIUM-HIGH — analytic juridical style suggests editorial sharpening by Tertullian
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.1.1: “Omnem sententiam … Marcionis ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit … praescriptive occurrere … praeiudicatum est … tota diversitas in unum et eundem deum competat” // Irenaeus, AH III (programmatic statement): “secundum Lucam Evangelium et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes … hæc sola legitima esse dicunt … ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos … in altera conscriptione”; cf. AH III.11 (unity of gospel economy), III.2–3 (regula fidei and apostolic succession). Methodological parallels. The chapter implements an internal refutation strategy precisely aligned with the program attributed to Irenaeus. Tertullian declares that the entire case against Marcion will be brought “to his own Gospel,” mirroring Irenaeus’s stated intention to argue from the texts Marcion retains. The critique of Marcion’s Antitheses also reflects the Irenaean habit of reversing heretical interpretive tools against their authors, treating the opponent’s hermeneutic as evidence against itself. The emphasis on praescriptio (“praescriptive occurrere”) corresponds to the Irenaean regula fidei as a methodological control guiding interpretation. Structural correspondences. The argument follows a recognizable sequence: doctrinal presupposition (unity of God and continuity of divine economy), Christological and covenantal integration (law and gospel belonging to one creator), followed by extended scriptural demonstration through prophetic citations. The move from theological premise to chained prophetic prooftexts resembles Irenaeus’s exegetical pattern, particularly his use of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms to demonstrate continuity between old and new covenant. The presentation of novelty (“novum testamentum”) as pre-announced within the creator’s plan reflects the Irenaean schema of recapitulation and ordered salvation history. Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is framed as a mutilator and divider introducing false dualism through artificial oppositions (“Antitheses”), echoing Irenaeus’s portrayal of heresy as distortion of an originally unified tradition. The insistence that diversity or apparent contrariety within revelation belongs to a single divine economy parallels Irenaeus’s response to heretical dualisms: differences between law and gospel are historical phases rather than evidence of multiple deities. The underlying historical argument—that prophetic proclamation precedes and validates the Gospel—aligns with Irenaeus’s use of chronological continuity as a criterion of orthodoxy. Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding. The tightly structured chain of prophetic citations and the systematic reinterpretation of “antithesis” as internal to the creator’s economy suggest a pre-existing exegetical framework rather than purely rhetorical improvisation. The integration of covenantal development, prophetic testimony, and gospel fulfillment reads as application of an established anti-Marcionite schema grounded in continuity of revelation. The presentation resembles a dominical-logia or harmony-compatible argument in which scriptural units are marshaled sequentially to demonstrate unity. Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework through its internal refutation from Marcion’s Gospel, structured appeal to prophetic continuity, and reinterpretation of opposition motifs within a single divine economy, closely reflecting the strategy anticipated in the lost “altera conscriptio.”