| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV.12) |
|---|---|
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “…we will refute them from those things still preserved among them…” | De scriptura enim sumitur creatoris et de Christi voluntate color… “For the argument is drawn from the Creator’s Scripture and colored by the will of Christ…” |
| …secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… “…but curtailing the Gospel according to Luke…” | …Marcion captat status controversiae… scripti et voluntatis. “…Marcion seizes upon the state of the controversy… of text and intention.” |
| …non enim alium Deum ostendunt, sed eum qui per legem et prophetas annuntiatus est… “…for they do not show another God, but the one proclaimed through the Law and the Prophets…” | …nihil Christum novi intulisse quod non sit ex forma, ex lenitate, ex misericordia, ex praedicatione quoque creatoris. “…Christ introduced nothing new that was not already from the pattern, gentleness, mercy, and proclamation of the Creator.” |
| …Scripturae ipsae eos arguunt… “…the Scriptures themselves refute them…” | Non veni dissolvere legem, sed adimplere… Adimplevit enim et hic legem, dum condicionem interpretatur eius… “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it… For here he fulfilled the law by interpreting its condition…” |
| …ex prophetis demonstratur… “…it is demonstrated from the prophets…” | …si odio insecutus est… sequebatur exclamantem ore Esaiae… “…if he pursued hatred of the Sabbath… he followed the one crying out through Isaiah…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.12.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.12.1–2 | Establishes methodological axiom: novel discipline ≠ novel deity | Identity of God precedes disciplinary interpretation; unity-of-economy rule | HIGH — portable principle resembling Irenaean methodological ordering |
| IV.12.2 | “First god, then discipline” ordering rule (“prius alium deum exponi…”) | Structural heresiological rule; identity-first framework | HIGH — strong Irenaean-style compositional logic; reads like inherited polemical maxim |
| IV.12.3–5 | Sabbath controversy framed through standard polemical refrains | Reusable anti-Marcion template; refrain (“alium Christum nusquam praedicatum”) | MEDIUM-HIGH — suggests dossier-like modular argument reused across pericopes |
| IV.12.6–8 | Scriptural catena (Joshua, Isaiah, David, manna, Exodus, prophets) demonstrating continuity | Proof-chain method; Law/Prophets/Gospel continuity | HIGH — catena structure resembles inherited anti-Marcionite compilation |
| IV.12.9–11 | Distinction between human work (“opus tuum”) and divine saving work (“opus dei”) | Clean definitional distinction resolving Sabbath objection | HIGH — tight scholastic formulation suggests stock anti-Marcion solution block |
| IV.12.4–15 | Rhetorical asides (“ut aliquid ludam…”, direct addresses) overlaying structural argument | Authorial voice layered over pre-existing argumentative framework | MEDIUM — indicates Tertullianic redaction of earlier polemical material |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.12: “nec hanc quaestionem consistere potuisse si non dominum sabbati circumferret Christus… novitate institutionis… alium Christum nusquam praedicatum… Non veni dissolvere legem sed adimplere… evangelium ex lege provehitur” // Irenaeus, AH III.11.7 “Marcion evangelium decurtans”; IV.8.1–2 dominus legis idem Christus; IV.9.3 sabbatum typologicum; IV.13.1 lex praeparatio evangelii; IV.33.1 progressus revelationis sub uno deo; II.25.1–3 scripturarum mutilatio.
Methodological parallels. The argument proceeds by refutation from Marcion’s own Gospel material, precisely matching the program announced in AH III (“ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur”). The sabbath controversy is interpreted internally: Christ’s authority as dominus sabbati demonstrates continuity with the Creator rather than opposition. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian insists that novelty of practice cannot establish novelty of divinity; discipline follows deity, not vice versa. The appeal to prophetic precedent (Jericho, Isaiah, Elisha) corresponds to Irenaeus’s repeated method of reading Gospel acts through earlier scriptural patterns to neutralize Marcionite discontinuity. The insistence that Christ fulfills rather than abolishes the law parallels AH IV.13.1, where Irenaeus argues that evangelical teaching clarifies the intent of the Mosaic law.
Structural correspondences. The sequence follows an Irenaean argumentative structure: first, theological premise (Christ as Lord of the sabbath); second, clarification of the hermeneutical principle that novelty does not imply a new god; third, sequential commentary on Gospel pericopes (grain-plucking, healing, prophetic precedents); fourth, doctrinal synthesis affirming fulfillment (“adimplere”). The repeated distinction between human works and divine works within sabbath law echoes Irenaeus’s typological reading of commandments as pedagogical stages leading to Christ (AH IV.15–16). The argument’s development from monotheism to Christology to pericope exegesis mirrors the broader architecture of Irenaeus’s anti-heretical exposition.
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is portrayed as misreading novelty and severing Christ from prophetic history, a theme matching Irenaeus’s depiction of heretics as innovators who mutilate Scripture and disrupt salvation history (AH I.27; III.12). The claim that no “other Christ” has been proclaimed aligns with Irenaeus’s insistence on the single historical economy transmitted through prophets and apostles (AH III.16; IV.33). Appeals to prophetic authority and the unity of divine intention reinforce the anti-Marcionite polemic that heresy arises from misinterpretation rather than authentic tradition.
Inherited exegetical scaffolding. The chapter’s tightly sequenced treatment of sabbath episodes and scriptural precedents suggests a pre-existing exegetical framework rather than purely rhetorical invention. The consistent movement from prophetic example to Gospel application resembles dominical-logia commentary or harmony-compatible scholia. The organic metaphor of fulfillment—Christ interpreting and illuminating the law’s intention—closely parallels Irenaeus’s developmental theology of recapitulation and progressive revelation.
Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: it refutes Marcion using retained Gospel material, structures its argument around prophetic continuity and fulfillment, and employs hermeneutical principles characteristic of Irenaeus’s theology of unity between law and Gospel.
