| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV.11) |
|---|---|
| …secundum Lucam autem Evangelium, et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes… “…but curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul…” | Inflatus es utribus veteribus et excerebratus es novo vino, atque ita veteri, id est priori evangelio, pannum haereticae novitatis assuisti. “You are puffed up with old wineskins and addled by new wine, and so you have sewn a patch of heretical novelty onto the old—that is, the earlier—Gospel.” |
| …secundum Lucam autem Evangelium, et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes… “…but curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul…” | Nam et vinum novum is non committit in veteres utres qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum. “For he does not put new wine into old wineskins unless he has had old wineskins, and no one puts a new addition onto an old garment unless he has not lacked an old garment.” |
| Passage Unit (IV.11.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.11.1–3 | Publican call and “physician” saying used to collapse Marcionite anti-law interpretation from within retained pericope | Refutation from retained gospel material; internal logical constriction; coherence-driven argument | HIGH — textbook execution of “refute from what they retain” program; modular argumentative structure |
| IV.11.4–5 | John and Christ compared; critique of Marcionite “suddenness” (“subito Christus, subito Ioannes”) | Narrative continuity as proof of single economy; prophetic preparation framework | HIGH — strong Irenaean-style salvation-history continuity argument |
| IV.11.5–8 | Prophetic identity network (Isaiah voice, bridegroom imagery) binding John and Christ to creator | Prophecy-fulfillment hermeneutic establishing unified dispensation | HIGH — classic Irenaean identity-through-prophecy logic applied programmatically |
| IV.11.8 | Ascetic contradiction (Marcionite discipline vs bridegroom imagery) | Polemical use of opponent praxis; pre-formed anti-Marcion profile | MEDIUM-HIGH — reads like inherited controversy module rather than fresh exegetical development |
| IV.11.9–11 | “New wine / old wineskins” interpreted against dualism; creator already promised “new” | Developmental unity model (“seed → fruit”); innovation within one economy | HIGH — strong alignment with Irenaean developmental continuity framework |
| IV.11.10 | Logical reductio: metaphor presupposes single owner of old and new | Compact forensic syllogism; reusable polemical unit | HIGH — modular anti-Marcion argument suggests prior dossier usage |
| IV.11.12 | Parabolic speech tied to Psalms (“Aperiam in parabolam…”) | Scriptural continuity at rhetorical level | MEDIUM-HIGH — continuity motif consistent with inherited anti-Marcion hermeneutic |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.11: “Publicanum adlectum… medicum sanis non esse necessarium sed male habentibus… Ioannis erat Christus et Ioannes Christi… vetera et nova… evangelium separatur a lege dum provehitur ex lege” // Irenaeus, AH III.11.7 “Marcion… evangelium decurtans”; III.16.5 Christus legis et prophetarum complementum; IV.9.1–3 medicus animae Christus; IV.12.1 novum et vetus sub uno deo; IV.33.1 progressus revelationis; II.13 Scripturarum mutilatio.
Methodological parallels. The chapter follows the Irenaean strategy announced in AH III of refuting Marcion from the retained Gospel itself. The calling of the publican and the “physician” saying are treated as internal evidence that Christ belongs within the Creator’s salvific economy. Tertullian’s use of prophetic anticipations and Gospel sayings as mutually interpretive echoes Irenaeus’s recurring method of demonstrating doctrinal continuity by chaining Gospel passages with prophetic texts. The critique of Marcion’s misunderstanding of “new and old” directly parallels Irenaeus’s insistence that novelty lies in fulfillment and expansion rather than opposition (AH IV.12; IV.33). The accusation of mutilating Scripture aligns verbally and conceptually with Irenaeus’s language of “decurtare” and “intercidere” (AH III.11.7; I.27.2).
Structural correspondences. The argumentative structure reproduces the Irenaean pattern: first, reinterpretation of a Gospel episode (publican; physician metaphor); second, integration into prophetic continuity (Isaiah, Psalms, Song of Songs, Jeremiah); third, doctrinal synthesis asserting unity between law and Gospel. The discussion of John the Baptist functions as a chronological anchor preserving the Creator’s historical order, comparable to Irenaeus’s use of prophetic succession to situate Christ within a continuous economy (AH III.10–11). The treatment of “new wine and old wineskins” develops into an explicit theory of progressive revelation—evangelium emerging from lex without contradiction—closely mirroring Irenaeus’s recapitulation framework (AH IV.33).
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is depicted as a late innovator who disrupts established order (“subito Christus, subito et Ioannes”), a criticism aligned with Irenaeus’s historical polemic portraying heretics as severed from apostolic succession (AH III.3–4). The emphasis on unity between John and Christ against Marcionite separation parallels Irenaeus’s repeated insistence that prophetic and evangelical witnesses derive from one divine source. The rhetorical appeal to scriptural authority and prophetic continuity corresponds to Irenaeus’s strategy of grounding anti-heretical arguments in shared canonical texts rather than external philosophical critique.
Inherited exegetical scaffolding. The chapter’s movement through discrete Gospel logia—publican narrative, physician metaphor, fasting controversy, bridegroom imagery, new/old analogy—suggests a pre-existing exegetical sequence resembling dominical-logia commentary. The dense aggregation of prophetic prooftexts supporting continuity between law and Gospel reflects Irenaean compositional habits more than purely Tertullianic forensic rhetoric. The progressive-development model (“fructus separatur a semine… evangelium ex lege”) closely matches Irenaeus’s organic metaphors for salvation history.
Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly reinforces dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: it deploys internal Gospel refutation, integrates prophetic continuity, preserves chronological order between John and Christ, and articulates the unity and developmental progression of law and Gospel using arguments and imagery characteristic of Irenaeus’s anti-Marcionite methodology.
