| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (IV.17) |
|---|---|
| …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 claim that these alone are legitimate, which they themselves have reduced.” | Hanc etenim dicimus operam legis fuisse procurantis evangelio. “For we say that this was the work of the Law, preparing the way for the Gospel.” |
| …per prophetas et legem demonstratur unus et idem Deus… “through the prophets and the Law one and the same God is demonstrated…” | Haec creator una pronuntiatione clusit… per Ezechielem… per Deuteronomium… “The Creator enclosed these things in one pronouncement… through Ezekiel… through Deuteronomy…” |
| …Scripturis ipsis arguuntur… “they are refuted by the Scriptures themselves…” | Ut opinor, haec retributionem pro meritis provocatam sonant. A quo ergo retributio? “As I think, these things speak of reward provoked by merits. From whom then is the recompense?” |
| …non novum Deum inducit Christus sed eum qui ante per legem et prophetas praedicatus est… “Christ does not introduce a new God but the one previously proclaimed through the Law and prophets…” | Puto me… definio nusquam omnino alium deum a Christo revelatum. “I think I have sufficiently established that nowhere at all was another god revealed by Christ.” |
| …qui iudex est et retribuit unicuique secundum opera… “he who is judge and repays each according to works…” | Si a creatore, ut a iudice et dispunctore meritorum… “If from the Creator, as judge and evaluator of merits…” |
| …eadem doctrina in evangelio quae iam per prophetas tradita est… “the same teaching in the Gospel which had already been delivered through the prophets…” | Agnosco doctrinam eius veterem qui mavult misericordiam quam sacrificium. “I recognize his ancient teaching—the one who prefers mercy rather than sacrifice.” |
| …qui ab initio cognitus est Deus Iudaeorum… “the God of the Jews who has been known from the beginning…” | Utrumne… ille qui semper dominus habebatur, ut a primordio cognitus, deus scilicet Iudaeorum? “Which one… the one who was always regarded as Lord, known from the beginning, namely the God of the Jews?” |
| …haeretici Scripturas male interpretantes… “heretics misinterpreting the Scriptures…” | Eximat et de oculo suo trabem haereticus… nec veritas haeresim… “Let the heretic remove the beam from his own eye… nor does truth produce heresy…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.17.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.17.1–3 | Lending / debt sayings interpreted through Deut & Ezekiel | Gospel ethic explained as pedagogical continuation of Law (“lex procurans evangelio”) — classic Irenaean economy logic | Strong dossier feel; staged moral progression suggests inherited testimonia block |
| IV.17.4–5 | “Et eritis filii Dei” against Marcionite asceticism | Identity of God inferred from creation/fatherhood → hallmark Irenaean creation-theology test | Argument works independent of specific wording → reusable anti-Marcion module |
| IV.17.6–7 | Beneficence proves deity identity (rain/sun argument inversion) | Ethical vocabulary grounded in prior benefaction history — Irenaeus’ “known benefactor” polemic against unknown god | Reads like inherited reductio template applied to new pericope |
| IV.17.8 | Mercy command linked to prophetic mercy tradition | Testimonia chain showing continuity of divine character (mercy already Creator’s signature) | Structured proof-catena strongly suggests precompiled source |
| IV.17.9–10 | Reciprocity sayings require judge/rewarder | Moral command logically presupposes judicial deity → anti-Marcion logic typical of Irenaeus | Highly schematic reasoning; portable argument block |
| IV.17.11–12 | Cerdon → Marcion → Apelles genealogy inserted | Classic Irenaean heresiology: doctrinal lineage + degeneration narrative | Abrupt shift from exegesis to genealogy indicates inherited anti-heretical dossier |
| IV.17.12–13 | “Lord, Lord” language presupposes known Israelite God | Refutation from shared text: retained dominical speech already embedded in Creator-language | Direct execution of AH III strategy |
“Mihi vindictam, et ego vindicabo”; “Ita si quid Christus intulit, non adversario sed adiutore praecepto, non destruxit disciplinas creatoris” (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.16) — cf. “Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos” and the continuity principle in Irenaeus, AH III (esp. III.11; III.12; III.15), where argument proceeds from the retained Gospel traditions and from the unity of the Creator’s law and Christ’s teaching (“non destruens sed adimplens”).
Methodologically, the chapter proceeds according to the program attributed to Irenaeus: refutation from material preserved by the opponents themselves. The sayings of Jesus — love of enemies, turning the other cheek, giving to all who ask — are treated as part of the Gospel tradition retained by Marcionites and therefore as internal evidence. The argument consistently presupposes that the Gospel text under examination (the Marcionite recension of Luke) provides the basis for demonstrating continuity with the Creator’s prior revelation. This reproduces Irenaeus’s announced strategy (AH III) of arguing “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur,” using retained evangelic and Pauline material against Marcionite theological claims.
Structurally, the chapter follows a recognizable sequence parallel to Irenaean exposition. First comes theological continuity: the ethics of patience and mercy are traced back to prophetic and Mosaic precedent. Second comes exegetical harmonization: talion law (“oculum pro oculo”) is interpreted as pedagogical restraint rather than contradiction of later evangelical teaching, thereby preserving unity between Law and Gospel. Third comes sequential Gospel exegesis: individual dominical sayings are treated as loci for demonstrating prophetic anticipation and Creator-origin. This mirrors the Irenaean pattern in AH IV, where dominical sayings are interpreted as fulfillment rather than abrogation, emphasizing continuity across covenants.
Historically and polemically, the argument treats Marcion as a secondary interpreter who misconstrues inherited traditions. The logic parallels Irenaeus’s depiction of Marcion as one who mutilates or truncates received texts while unknowingly preserving evidence against himself (AH III.12; III.15). Appeals to prophetic precedent, divine judgment, and continuity of disciplinary structure echo Irenaeus’s frequent insistence that Christ neither abolishes the law nor introduces an alien deity but reveals the Creator’s intentions more fully.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding are prominent. The passage moves through sayings in a structured series resembling dominical-logia commentary: enemy-love → non-retaliation → generosity → universal benevolence → golden rule → ethical reciprocity. Each is linked to prior scriptural witnesses (Zech., Deut., Isa., Ezek.), suggesting an earlier scholion-like layer where dominical sayings were paired with prophetic antecedents. The argumentative logic is harmony-compatible: Gospel sayings function as interpretive expansions of earlier scripture rather than independent rhetorical units, consistent with a pre-existing exegetical framework rather than purely Tertullianic polemic.
Condensed assessment: the chapter strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean-style anti-Marcionite framework. Its internal-refutation method, continuity hermeneutic, and sequential dominical commentary align closely with the strategy announced in AH III of arguing against Marcion from the Gospel material he preserved, suggesting that Tertullian’s exposition may reflect adaptation of an inherited anti-Marcionite exegetical schema.
