| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (IV.10) |
|---|---|
| …Scripturas… pervertunt interpretationibus… “…they distort the Scriptures by their interpretations…” | …Habes itaque iam et specialis medicinae dispunctam prophetiam… Pariter et dimissorem delictorum Christum recognosce apud eundem prophetam… “…You have already the prophecy of the specific healing set forth… Likewise recognize Christ as the forgiver of sins in the same prophet…” |
| …ex prophetis demonstrant concordiam cum Creatore… “…they demonstrate harmony with the Creator from the prophets…” | …Ecce ego mittam piscatores multos… se eum esse qui per Hieremiam pronuntiarat… “…‘Behold, I will send many fishers…’ that he is the one proclaimed through Jeremiah…” |
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “…from those things still preserved among them we will refute them…” | …Prius est igitur neges creatorem indulsisse aliquando delicta… consequens est ut ostendas nec in Christum suum tale quid eum praedicasse… “…First you must deny that the Creator ever forgave sins… then you must show that nothing such was proclaimed about his Christ…” |
| …evangelium cum prophetis consonans… “…the Gospel consonant with the prophets…” | …Quis dimittet peccata nisi solus deus?… Habes itaque… prophetiam… et eorum quae medicinam sunt secuta… “…‘Who can forgive sins except God alone?’… You therefore have prophecy… and what followed the healing…” |
| …Christum per prophetas praenuntiatum ostendunt… “…they show Christ foretold through the prophets…” | …cum appellatione filii hominis ex instrumento Danielis… ostenderet deum et hominem… “…with the title ‘Son of Man’ from Daniel’s Scripture… to show God and man…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.10) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.10.1–3 | Healing of paralytic interpreted through prophetic framework rather than textual comparison; forgiveness authority becomes theological pivot | Classic “refute from retained text” strategy — assumes Marcion’s Luke as shared base; prophetic fulfillment grid applied immediately (Isaiah precedents); narrative coherence used instead of manuscript criticism | HIGH — reads like inherited anti-Marcion exegetical module where prophetic continuity determines identity of Christ |
| IV.10.4–6 | Catalogue of OT mercy precedents (Nineveh, David, Ahab, Israel restorations) to dismantle claim that forgiveness belongs to a new god | Dense proof-catena resembling testimonia dossier; continuity-of-divine-character argument typical of Irenaean method (same God judges and forgives) | HIGH — structure feels preassembled; cumulative precedents deployed as reusable apologetic packet |
| IV.10.7–9 | “Son of Man” title grounded in Danielic prophecy rather than narrative semantics | Prophetic identity precedes gospel wording; theological ownership determined by prior revelation — strong AH-style recapitulation logic | HIGH — identity-by-prophecy framework aligns closely with Irenaean theological architecture |
| IV.10.10–12 | Anti-docetic and christological excursus integrated into paralytic narrative; incarnation assumed from healing authority | Modular anti-heretical layering (anti-docetic + anti-Marcion simultaneously); thematic stacking beyond immediate pericope | MEDIUM–HIGH — suggests incorporation of broader anti-heretical dossier material adapted into commentary flow |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.10: “Quis dimittet peccata nisi solus deus? … dimittere peccata … filius hominis … ut se filium hominis pronuntiaret … Danielis … veniens cum nubibus caeli … erasisse / decurtasse” // Irenaeus, AH III.11.7 “Marcion … evangelium decurtans”; III.17.1 Christus prophetias implens; IV.2.3 lex figurata spiritalia significans; IV.5.2–4 remissionem peccatorum a Creatore promissam; V.15.2 “Filius hominis” ex Dan. 7; II.13 haeretici Scripturas mutilant.
Methodological parallels. The argument operates exactly according to the Irenaean program announced in AH III: refutation from Marcion’s retained Gospel itself. The healing of the paralytic becomes an internal proof against Marcionite theology, because the narrative presupposes the Creator as forgiver of sins and fulfiller of prophecy. Tertullian repeatedly presses prophetic texts (Isaiah, Micah, Daniel) to interpret the Gospel episode, mirroring Irenaeus’s method of demonstrating doctrinal continuity by reading Gospel scenes through prophetic antecedents (AH III.17; IV.5). The emphasis on editorial removal or mutilation of passages aligns with Irenaeus’s accusation that Marcion “decurtans” Luke constructs theology through excision (AH III.11.7; I.27.2).
Structural correspondences. The chapter follows the familiar Irenaean argumentative trajectory: prophetic anticipation → Gospel fulfillment → theological inference. First, Isaiah is invoked to frame the paralytic’s healing as fulfillment (“Convalescite …”), then remission of sins is grounded in prophetic declarations of divine forgiveness (Isa 53; Mic 7), and finally the Christological conclusion emerges through the title “filius hominis” interpreted via Daniel 7. This movement from prophecy to fulfillment to doctrinal synthesis mirrors Irenaeus’s “economy” model, where Christ recapitulates earlier revelation and demonstrates unity between law, prophets, and Gospel (AH IV.2; IV.33). The excursus on the “filius hominis” title likewise reflects Irenaeus’s typological reading of Daniel as prefiguring the incarnate judge (AH V.15.2).
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is portrayed as the late innovator whose theology collapses under apostolic-prophetic continuity. The insistence that forgiveness belongs to the same God who judges echoes Irenaeus’s frequent critique that Marcion separates mercy from justice, whereas Scripture presents both within the single Creator (AH IV.40; IV.39). Appeals to prophetic fulfillment and Danielic authority reinforce apostolic continuity and ecclesial tradition, a hallmark of Irenaean anti-heretical historiography (AH III.3–4). The repeated stress that forgiveness narratives already exist within the Creator’s history (Nineveh, David, Ahab) parallels Irenaeus’s technique of multiplying biblical exempla to dismantle dualistic claims (AH IV.5).
Inherited exegetical scaffolding. The chapter reads like a pre-established anti-Marcionite dossier: prophetic prooftexts assembled to demonstrate continuity of forgiveness theology, followed by a structured analysis of the “Son of Man” title culminating in Danielic interpretation. This resembles Irenaeus’s systematic chaining of scriptural testimonia rather than purely Tertullianic rhetorical invention. The emphasis on figurative law, prophetic anticipation, and recapitulative Christology suggests reliance on an inherited exegetical framework consistent with the lost anti-Marcionite treatise implied in AH III.
Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: it refutes Marcion through retained Gospel passages, integrates prophecy and Gospel via typological exegesis characteristic of Irenaeus, emphasizes mutilation of Scripture, and deploys Danielic “Son of Man” theology in a manner closely aligned with Irenaean recapitulation and unity-of-economy arguments.
