| Irenaeus | Tertullian |
|---|---|
| “Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures… curtailing the Gospel according to Luke… In another work, however, I shall refute them out of these which they still retain.” (Adversus Haereses III.12.12) | …Nam cum transfretat, psalmus expungitur: Dominus, inquit, super aquas multas. Cum undas freti discutit, Abacuc adimpletur: Dispargens, inquit, aquas itinere. Cum ad minas eius eliditur mare, Naum quoque absolvitur… Unde vis meum vindicem Christum? de exemplis an de prophetis creatoris? “…For when he crosses the sea, a psalm is brought forward: ‘The Lord is upon many waters.’ When he scatters the waves, Habakkuk is fulfilled… when the sea is rebuked, Nahum likewise is fulfilled… From where do you want me to prove my avenging Christ — from examples or from the prophets of the Creator?” |
| “They pervert the interpretations… but we shall convict them from the Scriptures themselves.” (Adversus Haereses III.2; cf. III.12) | Non ita est. Sed agnorant substantiae auctorem suum… Inspice Exodum, Marcion, aspice mari rubro… “It is not so. Rather the elements recognized their own author… Look at Exodus, Marcion, look at the Red Sea…” |
| “The apostles preached one and the same God… the law and the prophets proclaim beforehand the things concerning Christ.” (Adversus Haereses III.11) | …de exemplis an de prophetis creatoris? … ut et de hoc bello psalmus possit videri pronuntiasse, Dominus validus, dominus potens in bello. “…from the examples or from the prophets of the Creator? … so that even concerning this battle the psalm might be seen to have proclaimed: ‘The Lord strong, the Lord mighty in battle.’” |
| “They imagine another god… yet are refuted by the very Scriptures which they use.” (Adversus Haereses III.15) | Nec enim videntur posse ignorasse adhuc quod novi et ignoti dei virtus operaretur in terris… non alium daemones sciebant quam dei sui Christum. “For they could not have failed to know if the power of a new and unknown god were working on earth… the demons knew no other than the Christ of their own God.” |
| “Christ did not destroy the law but fulfilled it, showing continuity with the Creator.” (Adversus Haereses III.12–13) | …Fides haec fuit primo, qua deum suum confidebat misericordiam malle quam ipsum sacrificium… qua eum deum certa erat operari in Christo… “…This was first the faith by which she trusted that her God preferred mercy rather than sacrifice… by which she was certain that this same God was working in Christ…” |
| “The heretics misinterpret passages by isolating words without context.” (Adversus Haereses III.16) | Quid dicit haereticus? Sciebatne personam? Et cur quasi ignorans loquebatur? … Sic et Adam aliquando quaesierat quasi ignorans… “What does the heretic say? Did he know the person? And why did he speak as if ignorant? … So also Adam was once questioned as if in ignorance…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.20..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.20.1–3 (storm / sea command) | Uses retained miracle narrative to prove creator identity through control of creation | Lucan event → OT precedent chain (Exodus/Jordan/Psalms water texts); identity established by continuity of divine acts rather than textual authority; miracle interpreted through prophetic economy | Classic “refute from retained text” procedure; looks like deployment of preassembled testimonia-catena rather than spontaneous proof |
| IV.20.4–7 (Legion / abyss / demons) | Demonic recognition forced into creator framework | Hostile witnesses as involuntary orthodox testimony — strong Irenaean structural habit; epistemological argument (“demons know creator’s realm”) | Modular anti-Marcion block reused elsewhere (cf. earlier demon arguments); suggests inherited polemical schema |
| IV.20.8 (“Quis me tetigit?” divine knowledge question) | Align Christ’s behavior with creator’s anthropomorphic questioning | Typological parallel: creator asking Adam vs Christ asking crowd; continuity established through shared divine mode | Very Irenaean normalization technique — reconcile problematic Gospel detail by aligning with earlier divine pattern |
| IV.20.9–13 (woman with hemorrhage) | Healing interpreted as fulfillment of creator law rather than violation | Law distinguished, not abolished; Torah interpreted through mercy logic; internal narrative reasoning used against Marcion | Hermeneutical rule (“non inrupisse sed distinxisse”) reads like reusable doctrinal module; probable dossier-style insertion |
“Non ita est. Sed agnorant substantiae auctorem suum…;” — cf. Irenaeus, AH III.11.7: “unum eundemque Deum ostendunt… qui per prophetas praedixit et per evangelium manifestatus est”; cf. AH III.12.12: “ex ipsis autem scripturis… arguuntur”; cf. AH I.27.2: “evangelium quidem secundum Lucam mutilantes…”.
Methodological parallels.
The chapter proceeds by the same internal-refutation logic announced in the Irenaean programmatic statement (“ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos”). Tertullian argues from episodes preserved in Marcion’s Gospel (i.e. the Lukan narrative sequence) rather than from external authority alone. The calming of the sea, the Gerasene demoniac, the hemorrhaging woman, and related Lukan pericopes are interpreted as self-testimony of the creator’s Christ. This mirrors Irenaeus’s repeated strategy of demonstrating that heretics are condemned by the very texts they retain (AH III.11–12; III.14). The argumentative movement—accept Marcion’s text, then interpret it prophetically and typologically to demonstrate continuity with the Creator—is structurally identical to Irenaeus’s internal critique of mutilated scripture.
Structural correspondences.
The sequence follows a recognizable Irenaean architecture: (1) Christological identity grounded in prophetic fulfilment; (2) demonstration through acts and dominical episodes; (3) appeal to scriptural precedent to show continuity of divine agency. The command over wind and sea is framed through Exodus typology (Moses and the Red Sea), prophetic anticipation (Psalms, Habakkuk, Nahum), and then exorcistic authority. This layered structure resembles Irenaeus Book III, where prophetic typology → gospel narrative → theological conclusion forms the argumentative spine. The chapter advances through successive Lukan episodes in near-catena fashion, suggesting inherited exegetical sequencing rather than ad hoc rhetorical expansion.
Historical polemic parallels.
Marcion is portrayed as a posterior innovator opposing an already unified scriptural economy, matching Irenaeus’s recurring depiction of heretics as late distorters (“mutilantes… decurtantes”). The demons’ recognition of Jesus as Son of God functions polemically against Marcionite dualism; similarly, Irenaeus repeatedly appeals to hostile witnesses (heretics or demons) acknowledging the creator’s Christ. The insistence that prophetic fulfilment precedes Christ’s acts aligns with Irenaeus’s emphasis on apostolic and prophetic continuity as the criterion of orthodoxy (AH III.2–4).
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
The chapter displays features consistent with pre-Tertullianic scholia: sequential commentary on discrete pericopes; dominical-logia style argumentation; reliance on prophetic proof-text clusters tied to narrative episodes; harmonizing typology (Moses → Christ; prophetic predictions → gospel fulfilment). These elements suggest a prior exegetical framework into which Tertullian inserts rhetorical flourishes. The repetitive formula (“lege… inspice… unde vis meum vindicem Christum?”) resembles commentary notes rather than original compositional architecture, consistent with the hypothesis of inherited anti-Marcionite exegesis akin to the work Irenaeus announces but does not preserve.
Condensed assessment.
Chapter IV.20 strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean-style anti-Marcionite framework: it employs internal critique from Marcion’s own (Lukan) text, advances through prophetically grounded pericope exegesis, and reiterates polemical themes characteristic of Irenaeus’s method, suggesting transmission of an established exegetical tradition rather than purely independent Tertullianic construction.
