| Irenaeus (b) | Tertullian (a) |
|---|---|
| …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.” | …satis perversum ut Christum non creatoris per ea renuntiarit intellegendum per quae magis Christum creatoris agnosci compellebat. “…it is sufficiently perverse that Christ should be proclaimed not as the Creator’s by those things through which he more strongly compelled recognition as the Creator’s Christ.” |
| …per prophetas et legem demonstratur unus et idem Deus… “through the prophets and the Law one and the same God is demonstrated…” | Non novum documentum. Hoc et prophetae creatoris ediderant, quanto magis filius? “Not a new proof. The prophets of the Creator had already performed this; how much more the Son?” |
| …Scripturis ipsis arguuntur… “they are refuted by the Scriptures themselves…” | …Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit viam tuam… “…Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way…” |
| …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…” | Adeo autem… nullum alium deum Christus intulerat… ut omnes illic creatori gloriam retulerint… “So much so that up to that point Christ had introduced no other god, since all there gave glory to the Creator…” |
| …qui ab initio cognitus est Deus… “the God known from the beginning…” | Ioannes autem certus erat neminem deum praeter creatorem… “John, however, was certain that there is no god except the Creator…” |
| …eadem doctrina evangelii quae iam in prophetis praenuntiata est… “the same teaching of the Gospel already foretold in the prophets…” | …Fides tua te salvam fecit… qui per Abacuc pronuntiarat, Iustus ex fide sua vivet. “…Your faith has saved you… he who had proclaimed through Habakkuk, ‘the just shall live by his faith.’” |
| Passage Unit (IV.18..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.18.1 — Centurion faith | Refutation from retained narrative: Jesus expects faith “in Israel” | Classic Irenaean move: internal narrative presupposition used as theological proof. Christ evaluates events within Israel’s covenantal framework → implies creator continuity | Method aligns strongly with AH III program: use retained Gospel material to collapse Marcionite dualism internally rather than via textual reconstruction |
| IV.18.2–3 — Widow’s son resurrection | Typological escalation (prophets → Christ) | Irenaean typology structure: prophetic acts prefigure Christ’s acts; continuity of divine agency across economy | Suggests inherited testimonia-chain; argument operates on established prophetic schema rather than fresh literary analysis |
| IV.18.3 — Crowd reaction (“God has visited his people”) | Narrative reaction used as theological witness | Irenaean internal-coherence argument: if crowd misunderstands deity identity, Christ would correct; silence = confirmation of creator identity | Reflects “refute from within narrative logic” model; Gospel itself functions as doctrinal witness |
| IV.18.4–7 — John the Baptist inquiry | Harmonization of apparent discontinuity | Typical Irenaean rescue technique: apparent doctrinal break reframed as developmental stage within single economy | Elaborate psychological explanation suggests inherited anti-Marcion apologetic tradition rather than spontaneous argument |
| IV.18.5 — Malachi messenger prophecy | Prophetic validation chain | Economy logic: prophecy → John → Christ → confirmation loop; very characteristic Irenaean triadic validation | Indicates use of established testimonia dossier linking prophetic anticipation to Gospel fulfillment |
| IV.18.7 — “Are you the one to come?” | Jewish expectation framework | Irenaean assumption: Gospel speech presupposes known covenantal theology; unknown god hypothesis rendered incoherent | Internal presupposition argument repeated across chapters → modular polemical template |
| IV.18.9 — Sinful woman episode | Anti-docetic aside embedded in moral exegesis | Irenaean layering: doctrinal checkpoints inserted into narrative commentary (anti-docetic continuity) | Suggests integration of broader anti-heretical tradition into Gospel commentary structure |
| IV.18.10 — Habakkuk “just shall live by faith” | Prophetic + Pauline convergence | Irenaean strategy: unify Gospel, prophets, and Paul within single economy to neutralize Marcion’s separation | Direct resonance with AH III program of refuting Marcion via Luke + Paul continuity |
“Non novum documentum… hoc et prophetae creatoris ediderant”; cf. Irenaeus AH III.11.7: “Marcion… secundum Lucam decurtans… ex ipsis quae adhuc servantur arguendus”; cf. AH IV.9.1–3: prophetic testimonia demonstrant Christum creatoris; cf. AH III.12.9: Christus nihil novi contra prophetas introducit sed eorum opera confirmat.
Methodological parallels.
The passage in Adversus Marcionem IV.18 proceeds through the same internal-refutation method Irenaeus explicitly announces in AH III: the opponent’s retained Gospel is used as the decisive evidentiary field. The centurion’s faith, the widow’s son raised, and the reaction of the crowd (“Respexit deus populum suum”) function as internal witnesses demonstrating continuity between Christ and the creator. This mirrors Irenaeus’ repeated claim that Marcion is “convicted from what he still preserves,” especially his appeal to Luke’s narrative episodes as evidence that Christ fulfills prophetic expectation rather than contradicting it (AH III.11; AH IV.9–12). Both authors argue by identifying features within the allegedly mutilated Gospel that undermine Marcionite dualism; the hermeneutic is not external proof but internal inconsistency. Tertullian’s use of prophetic citations to interpret narrative scenes corresponds to Irenaeus’ technique of reading Gospel pericopes through prophetic typology, especially where miracles are framed as confirmation of the prophetic tradition rather than novelties.
Structural correspondences.
The argumentative sequence follows the pattern characteristic of Irenaean anti-Marcionite discourse. First comes the affirmation that Christ belongs to Israel’s God (centurion episode interpreted as validation of Israel’s faith). Next comes Christology grounded in prophetic continuity (“hoc et prophetae creatoris ediderant”). Only after this theological positioning does the text move into sequential exegesis of Gospel episodes: resurrection miracle, testimony of crowds, John the Baptist’s inquiry, prophetic citation (“Ecce ego mitto angelum meum”). This mirrors the Irenaean structure in which theological premises (one creator, prophetic continuity) precede pericope-by-pericope exposition. The John-the-Baptist discussion especially reflects Irenaeus’ recurring strategy of neutralizing heretical claims by explaining narrative difficulties within a unified prophetic economy rather than attributing them to another deity.
Historical polemic parallels.
Both writers portray Marcion as a posterior innovator whose doctrine collapses when measured against inherited apostolic proclamation. Tertullian’s insistence that Christ introduced “nullum alium deum” parallels Irenaeus’ repeated statements that heretics invent a novel god unknown to prophets or apostles. Appeals to collective recognition (“omnes… gloriam retulerint”) echo Irenaeus’ emphasis on ecclesial consensus and apostolic continuity as interpretive authorities. The argument that the crowds attribute the miracle to Israel’s God corresponds directly to Irenaeus’ broader claim that Gospel narratives themselves preserve the original theological horizon shared by apostles and Church.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
Several features suggest reliance on an earlier structured commentary tradition rather than purely Tertullianic rhetorical development. The analysis proceeds episode-by-episode with minimal digression, resembling scholia aligned to Gospel pericopes. Scriptural catenae (prophets → psalms → Gospel narrative) appear as interpretive modules, consistent with dominical-logia style exposition. The handling of John the Baptist’s “scandalum” follows a harmonizing logic also characteristic of Irenaeus’ reconciliatory method, integrating potentially problematic passages into a single prophetic narrative. The consistent aim is to show that every narrative detail already presupposes the creator’s economy; this is structurally identical to Irenaeus’ project of demonstrating that Christ’s acts are anticipated by prophetic types.
Condensed assessment.
The chapter strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: internal refutation from the Marcionite Gospel, prophetic typology as primary interpretive tool, and sequential pericope commentary all align with the methodological program announced in AH III and implemented throughout Irenaeus’ corpus.
