| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (IV.16) |
|---|---|
| …et ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “and from those things which are still preserved among them, we will refute them…” | Sed vobis dico, inquit, qui auditis (ostendens hoc olim mandatum a creatore, Loquere in aures audientium) “But I say to you, he says, who hear (showing that this was long ago commanded by the Creator, ‘Speak into the ears of those who hear’).” |
| …per prophetas et per legem eundem Deum ostendunt… “through the prophets and through the Law they show the same God…” | Haec creator una pronuntiatione clusit per Esaiam: Dicite, fratres nostri estis, eis qui vos oderunt. “The Creator enclosed these things in one pronouncement through Isaiah: ‘Say, You are our brothers, to those who hate you.’” |
| …Scripturis utuntur ad confutandos… “they use the Scriptures to confute [them]…” | Atque adeo hoc statim renuntiandum est, an disciplina patientiae praedicatur penes creatorem. “And so it must at once be declared whether the discipline of patience is preached by the Creator.” |
| …non novum Deum inducit Christus, sed eum qui praedicatus est… “Christ does not introduce a new God, but the one who was proclaimed…” | Ita si quid Christus intulit, non adversario sed adiutore praecepto, non destruxit disciplinas creatoris. “Thus if Christ brought in anything, he did not destroy the Creator’s disciplines, but added a helping, not hostile, precept.” |
| …qui iudicat et ulciscitur, idem et miseretur… “he who judges and avenges is the same one who also shows mercy…” | Denique si in ipsam rationem patientiae praecipiendae… non consistet si non est creatoris, qui vindictam repromittit, qui iudicem praestat. “Finally, if I consider the very rationale for commanding patience… it will not stand unless it belongs to the Creator, who promises vengeance, who provides a judge.” |
| …per praecepta legis formavit hominem… “through the precepts of the Law he formed the human being…” | Non erit, inquit, in te indigens… Si autem fuerit indigens e fratribus tuis, non avertes cor tuum, nec constringes manum tuam… aperiens aperies illi manum… “‘There shall not be among you one in need’… ‘But if there should be one in need among your brothers, you shall not turn away your heart nor close your hand… opening you shall open your hand to him…’” |
| …ordo dispositionis: prius in suos, deinde in gentes… “the order of the dispensation: first to his own, then to the nations…” | Ita creator… primum in proximos docuit benignitatem… primo in Iudaeos, postea et in omne hominum genus. “Thus the Creator… first taught kindness toward neighbors… first toward the Jews, and afterward toward the whole human race.” |
| …eadem regula vitae: ne facias alteri quod tibi non vis… “the same rule of life: do not do to another what you do not wish for yourself…” | …Non occides, Non adulterabis, Non furaberis, Non falsum testimonium dices, docuit ne faciam aliis quae fieri mihi nolim… et ideo ipsius erit praeceptum in evangelio qui illud retro et praestruxit… “‘You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness’—he taught that I should not do to others what I would not wish to be done to me… and therefore the precept in the Gospel will belong to the one who earlier laid it down…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.16…) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.16.1–2 Enemy-love command introduced (“Sed vobis dico…”) | Neutralizes Marcionite claim that radical ethic implies new god | Classic Irenaean continuity move: ethical novelty interpreted as prophetic prefiguration rather than doctrinal rupture | Argument structure assumes rule: new teaching = unveiling of prior economy; looks inherited rather than improvised |
| IV.16.2–3 Isaianic precedent for loving enemies | Shows creator already commanded mercy toward enemies | Irenaean recapitulation logic: OT seed → Gospel fulfillment | Proof-chain deployment resembles testimonia dossier |
| IV.16.3–5 Talion reinterpretation | Converts lex talionis into pedagogical restraint | Typical Irenaean harmonization: difficult law reinterpreted teleologically (educative function of same God) | Highly schematic; reads like pre-existing apologetic module |
| IV.16.5–7 “Patientia requires judge” argument | Demonstrates ethical commands collapse without creator’s justice | Signature anti-Marcion syllogism also found in Irenaean logic: mercy requires judgment within same deity | Tight logical wedge suggests inherited polemical tradition |
| IV.16.7–10 “Give to all who ask” → Deut 15 | Shows universal charity already embedded in creator law | Economy expansion model: Israel-first → Gentile-extension (strongly Irenaean structure) | Sequential salvation-history framing typical of Irenaeus |
| IV.16.10–12 Hosea “non populus meus” application | Justifies widening of ethical horizon to outsiders | Recapitulation via prophetic anticipation — hallmark Irenaean argumentative pattern | Typological chain structured like catena source |
| IV.16.12–15 Golden Rule analysis | Rejects “unknown god” ethic by grounding moral formation in prior law | Law-as-pedagogue logic (creator forms moral cognition → Christ summarizes) | Highly programmatic; likely inherited framework |
“diligite inimicos vestros … benedicite eos qui vos oderunt” (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.16) — cf. “diligite inimicos vestros … non reddentes malum pro malo” and prophetic continuity arguments in Irenaeus (e.g. AH III.18; IV.13; IV.34); “Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguere eos” (AH III, programmatic anti-Marcionite statement) corresponding to Tertullian’s appeal to retained scriptural material and prophetic precedents.
Methodological parallels.
The chapter proceeds according to the anti-Marcionite program announced in AH III: refutation constructed from material preserved within the Marcionite textual tradition itself. The dominical sayings (“diligite inimicos,” “alteram maxillam”) are interpreted not as novelties but as clarifications of pre-existing creator-law. This mirrors Irenaeus’s recurring strategy of demonstrating continuity between Christ’s teaching and earlier prophetic or legal instruction rather than positing discontinuity between two gods. The exegetical move is internal critique: the ethical commands found in the Gospel (Marcion’s edited Luke) are read against the prophets and Torah to demonstrate identity of source. The argument assumes that Marcion’s retained Gospel material can be turned against Marcion — precisely the procedure described by Irenaeus (“ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguere eos”).
Structural correspondences.
The argumentative sequence follows a recognizable Irenaean pattern: first ethical dominical saying; second, prophetic antecedent; third, interpretive harmonization; fourth, theological inference regarding the unity of the creator and Christ. The chapter moves from love of enemies → reinterpretation of lex talionis → theological explanation of patience grounded in divine vengeance → ethical universality (giving to all, golden rule). This mirrors the structural logic of AH IV, where Christ’s sayings are sequentially anchored in prophetic anticipation, producing cumulative proof that Gospel teaching fulfils rather than abolishes earlier revelation.
Historical polemic parallels.
Marcion is implicitly cast as the innovator who falsely opposes Gospel and Creator. The critique assumes that Marcion’s theological dualism depends on isolating Gospel ethics from their scriptural genealogy; Tertullian counters by showing prophetic precedents for patience, mercy, and universal charity. This corresponds closely to Irenaeus’s depiction of Marcionites as mutilators of Luke and Paul who sever teachings from their original scriptural matrix. The emphasis on divine judgment (“mihi vindictam”) and continuity of moral discipline also parallels Irenaeus’s insistence that the same God is both judge and benefactor, opposing Marcion’s dichotomy.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
The structure exhibits features suggesting earlier scholion-like material rather than purely rhetorical composition. Each dominical command is linked to a cluster of prophetic citations, often in formulaic chains (Isaiah, Zechariah, Deuteronomy). The treatment resembles dominical-logia commentary: saying → prophetic precedent → interpretive clarification → doctrinal conclusion. The reinterpretation of “eye for eye” as preventative restraint rather than endorsement of retaliation reflects systematic exegesis characteristic of Irenaeus’s hermeneutical method. The cumulative progression of ethical maxims also resembles harmony-compatible annotation rather than ad hoc polemic.
Condensed conclusion.
Adv. Marc. IV.16 strongly aligns with an Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the argument proceeds by internal refutation from retained Gospel material, structured through prophetic fulfilment, and organized as sequential exegetical commentary suggestive of inherited anti-Marcionite scholia rather than exclusively Tertullianic invention.
