| Irenaeus | Tertullian |
|---|---|
| AH III.12.12 — “Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures… curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul… In another work I shall refute them from those things which they still retain.” | Nam et hoc vel maxime erubescere debuisti, quod illum cum Moyse et Helia in secessu montis conspici pateris, quorum destructor advenerat. Hoc scilicet intellegi voluit vox illa de caelo: Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite! id est non Moysen iam et Heliam. Ergo sufficiebat vox sola sine ostentatione Moysi et Heliae. Definiendo enim quem audirent quoscunque alios vetuisset audiri. “For you ought especially to be ashamed that you allow him to be seen with Moses and Elijah on the mountain… ‘This is my beloved Son; hear him!’… defining whom they should hear excluded the others.” |
| AH III.2.1 — “When they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse the Scriptures themselves…” | Sicine alienos demonstrat illos, dum secum habet? Sic relinquendos docet, quos sibi iungit? Sic destruit, quos de radiis suis exstruit? Quid faceret Christus ipsorum? Credo, secundum perveritatem tales eos revelasset quales Christus Marcionis debuisset… “Is this how he shows them to be strangers, while he has them with him?… What would their Christ have done? I suppose he would have revealed them differently…” |
| AH IV.9.1 — “There is one and the same God who proclaimed the law and sent the Gospel.” | Sed quid tam Christus creatoris quam secum ostendere praedicatores suos? cum illis videri quibus in revelationibus erat visus? cum illis loqui qui eum fuerant locuti? “What is more fitting for the Creator’s Christ than to show his own heralds with himself? To be seen with those to whom he had been revealed, to speak with those who had spoken of him…” |
| AH IV.12.1 — “The prophets announced beforehand the coming of the Son of God… showing the harmony of the covenants.” | Hunc igitur audite quem ab initio edixerat audiendum in nomine prophetae… Prophetam, inquit Moyses, suscitabit vobis deus… “Therefore hear him whom from the beginning he declared should be heard… ‘A prophet,’ says Moses, ‘God will raise up for you…’” |
| AH IV.26.1 — “The Church proves from the prophets and the Gospel that the same God is proclaimed throughout.” | Non legatus, inquit Esaias, nec nuntius, sed ipse deus salvos eos faciet… ipse iam praedicans et implens legem et prophetas. “Not an envoy nor a messenger, says Isaiah, but God himself shall save them… himself now preaching and fulfilling the law and the prophets.” |
| Passage Unit (IV.22) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s "Luke") | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.22.1–2 Transfiguration setup (Moses + Elijah appear) | Force Marcion’s retained Gospel scene to testify against dualism; presence of OT figures proves continuity | Classic Irenaean internal-refutation: use accepted Gospel narrative rather than external authority; prophetic continuity assumed | Strong sign of inherited anti-Marcion framework; argument presumes pre-existing “economy” model rather than building it from scratch |
| IV.22.3 Three witnesses motif | Explain number of disciples via Deut 19:15 legal precedent | Testimonia method (law → gospel typology); legal analogy typical of AH-style reasoning | Suggests use of compiled prooftexts; feels schematic rather than spontaneous |
| IV.22.4–5 Mountain / cloud imagery | Sinai recapitulation: same Creator inaugurates both covenants | Recapitulation logic; covenant succession rather than replacement | High Irenaean resonance (single divine economy); likely traditional anti-Marcion argument reused |
| IV.22.6–7 Heavenly voice (“This is my Son”) | Promise → manifestation → identity of deity; Creator alone can identify pre-promised Son | Core Irenaean argumentative template; prophetic anticipation validates Christ | Very strong marker of shared anti-Marcion polemical tradition |
| IV.22.8 “Hear him” (Deut 18 prophet like Moses) | Reframe shift from Moses to Christ as fulfillment, not rejection | Mosaic prophecy as internal validation; Christ interpreted through Torah expectation | Structured proof-chain suggests inherited testimonia dossier |
| IV.22.9–10 Habakkuk prophetic weave | Map prophetic phrases onto narrative details (fear, vision, witnesses) | Dense prophetic catena; multi-text overlay onto single scene | Looks preassembled; characteristic of early anti-heretical exegesis collections |
| IV.22.11 Zechariah olive trees / dual witnesses | Expand prophetic symbolism reinforcing continuity | Symbolic layering typical of Irenaean typology | Indicates reliance on established interpretive tradition |
| IV.22.12 Ecstasy / “nesciens quid diceret” aside | Tertullian inserts Montanist-era polemic (“psychici”) | NOT Irenaean; local authorial overlay | Likely secondary editorial layer within inherited framework |
| IV.22.13–14 Exodus 33 / Numbers 12 (Moses seeing glory) | Transfiguration fulfills Mosaic longing; same God across Testaments | Recapitulation theology (promise fulfilled later) | Strong structural parallel to Irenaean economy argumentation |
“Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos…” (Irenaeus, AH III) — cf. Tertullian IV.22 “Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite… societatem esse etiam claritatis Christi cum Moyse et Helia”; Irenaeus parallels include AH III.11.8–9 (Christ fulfilling Law and Prophets), AH IV.9.2 (“unus et idem Deus… legis et evangelii auctor”), AH IV.20.4–7 (prophets witnessing to Christ), AH IV.33.1–2 (Christ confirming prophetic tradition rather than abolishing it).
Methodological parallels
The procedure remains that announced by Irenaeus: refutation from the adversary’s retained materials rather than from rejected authorities. Tertullian continues to argue within the Marcionite Gospel tradition (identified with Luke), using pericopes accepted by Marcion (Transfiguration narrative) as internal evidence that Christ belongs to the Creator’s economy. This mirrors Irenaeus’ strategy in AH III.11 and III.12, where he demonstrates continuity by interpreting Gospel episodes as confirmations of prophetic expectation. Both writers employ a “hermeneutic inversion”: the very texts claimed by the heretic are deployed against the heretical thesis. The insistence that Moses and Elijah appear not as abolished authorities but as witnesses parallels Irenaeus’ recurring claim that Christ does not introduce alien revelation but confirms the prior dispensation (e.g., AH IV.9; IV.33).
Structural correspondences
The argumentative structure follows the recurring sequence already seen in earlier chapters: (1) polemical setup (Marcion allegedly separating Christ from the Law and Prophets); (2) exegetical demonstration using a Gospel narrative; (3) prophetic retrojection showing anticipation of the event; (4) doctrinal synthesis affirming unity of Testaments. Tertullian’s reading of the Transfiguration—voice from heaven identifying the Son, prophetic figures present, and continuity of revelation—matches Irenaeus’ pattern of demonstrating concord between Gospel manifestation and prophetic preparation. The appeal to Deut 19:15 (“in tribus testibus”) corresponds structurally to Irenaeus’ frequent use of scriptural witnesses arranged in triadic confirmation sequences (AH III.1; IV.32–33).
Historical polemic parallels
Both authors portray Marcion as a later innovator mutilating inherited texts (“decurtantes… minoraverunt” in Irenaeus; similar accusations of deletion in Tertullian). The Transfiguration becomes historical proof that Christ stands within Israel’s prophetic line. Irenaeus repeatedly insists that apostolic and prophetic succession guarantees doctrinal continuity; Tertullian’s insistence that Christ appears alongside Moses and Elijah as legitimate predecessors mirrors this anti-innovation logic. The rhetorical technique—placing the heretic against the consensus of prophetic tradition—matches AH III.3 (appeal to apostolic succession) and AH IV.33 (prophetic unanimity).
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding
The passage exhibits features suggesting prior exegetical tradition: sequential treatment of narrative elements (voice from heaven, witnesses, mountain setting, cloud imagery), cross-references to prophetic texts (Psalms, Isaiah, Habakkuk, Zechariah), and dominical-logia style argumentation where each Gospel detail is aligned with earlier Scripture. This stepwise structure resembles Irenaeus’ method of aligning Gospel events with prophetic prefiguration rather than Tertullian’s more typically juridical rhetoric. The harmony-compatible presentation (prophets + Christ forming a continuous chain) reinforces the impression of an inherited interpretive framework rather than purely original polemic.
Condensed conclusion
Chapter 22 reinforces dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework by reproducing Irenaeus’ methodological core: arguing from the adversary’s own Gospel, structuring exegesis as fulfillment of prophetic testimony, and presenting Christ as the visible continuation—not abolition—of the Law and Prophets; the Transfiguration serves as a paradigmatic example of that inherited exegetical strategy.
