|
|---|
| Passage Unit (IV.2.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.2.1 | Programmatic pivot to textual refutation inside Marcion’s Gospel (“evangelii… Pontici… adulterati”) | Explicit shift to refutation from opponent’s retained Luke; forensic textual examination; procedural alignment with refutation-from-retained-text strategy | HIGH — methodological framing strongly matches Irenaean program; reads like execution of inherited blueprint rather than spontaneous transition |
| IV.2.1–2 | Establishment of apostolic authorship hierarchy (apostles vs apostolic men) | Apostolic lineage as validation criterion; canonical genealogy argument; anti-Marcion hermeneutic grounded in succession logic | HIGH — structural parallel to Irenaean appeal to apostolic succession; conceptual framework appears inherited |
| IV.2.3 | Assertion that Marcion selected Luke to mutilate (“Lucam videtur…”) | Assumes canonical Luke as baseline; opponent text measured against prior authoritative form | HIGH — presupposed framework indicates prior anti-Marcion tradition already stabilizing Luke vs Marcion contrast |
| IV.2.4–5 | Paul–Luke relationship; subordination of Paul to wider apostolic authority (Gal 2 logic) | Pauline authority constrained by apostolic consensus; anti-Marcion schema neutralizing Pauline exclusivity | HIGH — resembles inherited anti-Marcion dossier; Pauline argument structured with pre-set logic rather than exploratory development |
| IV.2.6 | Decision to proceed through full engagement rather than simple dismissal | Ordered procedural sequence suggesting adherence to planned refutation outline | MEDIUM-HIGH — editorial self-consciousness (“proceed through everything”) suggests following pre-existing argumentative order |
| IV.2.2 (framework) | Implicit quadriform Gospel canon (John/Matthew vs Luke/Mark) | Presupposed fourfold gospel structure; canonical stability assumed | HIGH — strong Irenaean structural resonance; quadriform canon treated as given rather than argued |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.1–2: “ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit … praescriptive occurrere … tota diversitas in unum et eundem deum competat … constituimus inprimis evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere … Lucas non apostolus sed apostolicus … ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet” // Irenaeus, AH III (programmatic statement): “secundum Lucam Evangelium et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes … hæc sola legitima esse dicunt … ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos … in altera conscriptione”; cf. AH III.1–3 (apostolic authorship and succession), III.11 (fourfold gospel and unity of divine economy).
Methodological parallels. The opening of Book IV explicitly implements an internal refutation strategy: Marcion is confronted through “his own Gospel,” mirroring Irenaeus’s announced plan to argue from the texts Marcion retains. The critique of the Antitheses parallels Irenaeus’s practice of dismantling heretical hermeneutics by exposing their misuse of scriptural diversity. The appeal to praescriptio and regula corresponds to Irenaeus’s methodological reliance on the rule of faith and apostolic tradition as interpretive controls. The argument that Marcion mutilates Luke (“quem caederet”) echoes Irenaeus’s description of Marcion’s editing (“decurtantes”).
Structural correspondences. The argument unfolds according to a recognizable sequence: doctrinal presupposition (unity of God and continuity of revelation), followed by Christological and covenantal integration (law and gospel belonging to one creator), then an extended prophetic proof demonstrating that innovation was foretold by the creator himself. This leads into a canonical discussion establishing apostolic authorship of the Gospel corpus (Matthew, John, Mark, Luke), paralleling the structure of AH III where Irenaeus first establishes apostolic authority and only then turns to textual argumentation against heretical distortions. The movement from theological principle → prophetic testimony → canonical validation reflects the same architectural logic.
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is presented as a later innovator who artificially divides law and gospel through “antitheses,” aligning with Irenaeus’s portrayal of heresy as a posterior rupture within an otherwise continuous apostolic proclamation. The insistence on named apostolic authors and the hierarchy between apostles and apostolic men (Luke as apostolicus) mirrors Irenaeus’s emphasis on historical transmission and succession as guarantees of authenticity. The appeal to Paul’s consultation with earlier apostles (Gal 2) reflects the same chronological criterion used by Irenaeus: authentic doctrine is validated by continuity with earlier witnesses.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding. The structured chain of prophetic citations (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms, Malachi) demonstrating that novelty and covenantal change were already foretold suggests reliance on a pre-existing anti-Marcionite proof collection. The integration of canonical discussion (four evangelists), apostolic hierarchy, and textual criticism of Marcion’s Gospel resembles an established exegetical framework rather than purely rhetorical improvisation. The progression toward sequential Gospel examination indicates preparation for pericope-by-pericope exegesis consistent with a dominical-logia or harmony-compatible structure.
Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework through its internal refutation from Marcion’s edited Luke, its identical reliance on apostolic authority and prophetic continuity, and its structured movement from regula fidei to canonical and exegetical demonstration, closely aligning with the strategy anticipated in the lost “altera conscriptio.”
