|
|---|
| Passage Unit (IV.23..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.23.1–2 | Adoption of “persona Israelis” and legal interrogation of Christ (“Quisquis es…”) | Jurisdiction challenge: Christ must prove continuity before judging Israel; disputation persona format resembles earlier anti-heretical dialogue method | Strong signal of inherited polemical template; not typical free-flow Tertullian rhetoric |
| IV.23.3 | Rebuke of Israel implies prior revelation (“olim apud illos…”) | Core Irenaean logic: judgment presupposes earlier presence within same divine economy | High dependence indicator — matches AH III strategy (refute using retained sayings) |
| IV.23.4–5 | Attack on Marcionite “antithesis” (Elisha vs Jesus children episode) | Direct engagement with structured Antitheses-style contrast; dismantling pre-existing comparison | Likely responding to known dossier of contrasts rather than inventing scenario |
| IV.23.6–7 | Law–Prophets–Gospel chain deployed to show continuity | Recapitulation structure: OT precedent → Gospel fulfillment → same deity | Classic Irenaean argumentative skeleton |
| IV.23.8 | Logical dilemma: new Christ cannot rebuke unknown recipients | Internal presupposition argument; authority derived from historical continuity | Strong methodological alignment with Irenaeus rather than rhetorical flourish |
| IV.23.9–10 | Rapid legal citations (Lev 21; Num 6) explaining “leave the dead to bury their dead” | Catalog-like Torah classification; priestly/Nazirite precedent | Looks like use of precompiled proof list |
| IV.23.11 | Semantic transfer logic (spiritual reinterpretation presupposes literal basis) | Ontological continuity principle — symbolic does not negate historical reality | Very Irenaean metaphysical reasoning pattern |
| IV.23.12 | Sarcastic aside (“Asinus de Aesopi puteo…”) | Stylistic overlay characteristic of Tertullian | Suggests editorial voice layered onto inherited argumentative core |
“Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite” (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.23 / cf. IV.22 context) — cf. Irenaeus: “Unum et eundem Deum… qui per legem et prophetas et evangelium locutus est” (AH III.11; III.16); “ex ipsis Scripturis quae apud eos sunt arguere eos” (AH III, programmatic statement of refutation from retained texts).
Methodological parallels.
The chapter continues the program announced earlier: argument from the opponent’s own retained material. The rhetorical stance (“Suscipio in me personam Israelis”) mirrors Irenaeus’s technique of internal refutation, where the heretic is challenged on the basis of Scriptures he still acknowledges. The repeated interrogative formula (“quisquis es… prius ede quis sis, et a quo venias”) corresponds to Irenaeus’s recurrent demand that heterodox Christologies demonstrate continuity with prophetic revelation and apostolic proclamation. The logic is identical to AH III’s promise to refute Marcion from the Gospel and Pauline corpus preserved by his followers: the Christ encountered in the narrative is tested against prophetic precedent and scriptural continuity rather than external doctrinal premises.
Structural correspondences.
The argumentative sequence follows the recognizably Irenaean structure: first establish continuity between Jesus and the Creator’s prior revelation (law and prophets); then dismantle the antithesis schema; finally interpret specific dominical episodes as confirmations of prophetic expectation. The movement from identity testing (“a quo venias”) to prophetic validation (Isaiah, Moses, Elijah motifs) reflects the same progression seen throughout AH III–IV: unity of God → identity of Christ → exegetical proof through sequential Gospel material. The engagement with concrete Gospel pericopes (rebuke of unbelief, blessing of children, call narratives, prophetic typology) resembles the Irenaean pattern of cumulative scriptural testimony rather than isolated rhetorical examples.
Historical polemic parallels.
Both authors frame Marcion as a posterior innovator lacking historical rootedness. The insistence that Christ cannot rebuke Israel unless he already belongs to the Creator’s historical economy echoes Irenaeus’s recurrent claim that heretical Christs lack prophetic anticipation or apostolic continuity. The appeal to prophetic precedent (Elijah, Mosaic law, Deuteronomic prophecy) reproduces Irenaeus’s argument that the same God spoke through prophets and Gospel, undermining any claim of a newly revealed alien deity. The contrast between creator justice and Marcionite “goodness” repeats the Irenaean strategy of showing that apparent antitheses collapse when read within scriptural continuity.
Inherited exegetical scaffolding.
The passage shows signs of pre-existing scholastic structure rather than purely Tertullianic rhetoric. The commentary moves pericope by pericope, treating narrative units as proof-texts aligned with prophetic types. The argumentative rhythm — citation of dominical saying, immediate testing against law/prophets, then theological conclusion — corresponds closely to the dominical-logia style associated with earlier anti-heretical exegesis. The systematic neutralization of Marcion’s antitheses through scriptural harmonization suggests a framework that could easily derive from a prior exegetical dossier rather than spontaneous composition. The repeated reliance on prophetic typology (children narratives, Elijah parallels, Deuteronomic prophet) reflects a harmony-compatible interpretive layer consistent with the type of anti-Marcionite work Irenaeus announces.
Condensed conclusion.
Chapter IV.23 strongly aligns with an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: refutation from the opponent’s retained Gospel, sequential exegetical structure grounded in prophetic continuity, and polemical patterns characteristic of AH III–IV all indicate dependence on an inherited exegetical tradition plausibly connected with the lost work promised by Irenaeus.
