| Irenaeus (b) | Tertullian (a) |
|---|---|
| AH III.12.12 — “Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures… curtailing the Gospel according to Luke… I shall refute them from those things which they still retain.” | Antitheses plurimum causarum diversitas fecit, non potestatum… Haec erunt potius nostrae antitheses, quae comparant, non quae separant Christum. (Adv. Marc. IV.24.1, 4)“The antitheses have produced chiefly a diversity of causes, not of powers… These will rather be our antitheses, which compare Christ, not separate him.” |
| AH IV.9.1 — “The same God who proclaimed the law also sent the Gospel.” | Considera causarum offerentiam, et intelleges unam et eandem potestatem… (Adv. Marc. IV.24.2)“Consider the differing circumstances and you will understand one and the same power…” |
| AH III.11.7 — “The apostles did not preach another God, but the same who was announced by the prophets.” | O Christum destructorem prophetarum, a quibus hoc quoque accepit! Helisaeus… (Adv. Marc. IV.24.3)“O Christ, the supposed destroyer of the prophets—from whom he even received this!” |
| AH IV.26.1 — “The Church proves from the prophets and the Gospel that the same God is proclaimed throughout.” | Dignus est autem operarius mercede sua… Iam nunc et hic lex consignatur creatoris… (Adv. Marc. IV.24.4)“The worker is worthy of his wage… even here the law of the Creator is confirmed…” |
| AH III.12.12 — “…from those things which they still retain…” | Regnum dei neque novum neque inauditum… dum illud iubet annuntiari appropinquasse… quod enim longe fuerit aliquando, id potest dici appropinquasse. (Adv. Marc. IV.24.5–6)“The kingdom of God is neither new nor unheard-of… since he orders it to be proclaimed as having drawn near… for what was once far away can be said to have drawn near.” |
| AH III.12.12 — “…from those things which they still retain…” | Scitote tamen appropinquasse regnum dei… habes deum executorem in comminatore et iudicem in utroque. (Adv. Marc. IV.24.7)“Know nevertheless that the kingdom of God has drawn near… you have a God who executes what he threatens, and a judge in both.” |
| AH III.12.12 — “…from those things which they still retain…” | Qui vos spernit, me spernit… hoc et Moysi creator… Non te contempserunt sed me. (Adv. Marc. IV.24.8)“Whoever rejects you rejects me… and this too the Creator said to Moses: ‘They have not rejected you, but me.’” |
| AH III.12.12 — “…from those things which they still retain…” | Aequanda erit auctoritas utriusque officii, ab uno eodemque domino apostolorum et prophetarum. (Adv. Marc. IV.24.9)“The authority of both offices will be equal, coming from one and the same Lord of apostles and prophets.” |
| AH IV.20.1 — “The same Lord who spoke through the prophets…” | Super aspidem et basiliscum incedes… sicut nonagesimus psalmus ad eum… (Adv. Marc. IV.24.10)“You shall tread upon the asp and basilisk… as the ninetieth psalm says of him…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.24..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.24.1–2 (Seventy disciples mission) | Uses Marcion-retained Lucan mission discourse to argue continuity with Creator’s prior patterns | Classic recapitulation logic: Gospel detail → OT typological precedent (Elim: 12 springs / 70 palms) → identity of deity; refutation from retained material | Strong indicator of inherited anti-Marcion schema; reads like pre-assembled typological proof |
| IV.24.3–4 (Travel instructions vs OT precedent) | Neutralizes Antithesis between OT provisions and apostolic poverty | “Differences of circumstances not powers” (causae vs potestates) — hallmark Irenaean reconciliation method | Suggests reuse of anti-Antitheses formula; likely drawn from established polemical tradition |
| IV.24.5–6 (Elisha parallels; greeting prohibition; peace formula) | Converts narrative commands into prophetic continuity | Catena-style parallels (Elisha → apostles); procedural reasoning rather than rhetorical flourish | Looks like modular proof unit; possible dossier extraction |
| IV.24.7–8 (“Dignus operarius mercede sua”) | Judicial theology: Christ presupposes judging Creator | Small narrative detail → doctrinal identity argument; very Irenaean legal logic | Strong signal of inherited argumentative template |
| IV.24.9 (Egyptian plundering analogy) | Defends OT ethics against Marcionite critique using justice/wages logic | Known anti-Marcion apologetic motif; Creator law anticipates Gospel ethics | Likely traditional polemical material reused rather than fresh invention |
| IV.24.10 (“Approprinquasse regnum dei”) | Linguistic logic: “drawn near” implies prior existence | Semantic syllogism — linguistic detail turned into theological proof | Highly schematic reasoning; suggests earlier exegetical tradition |
| IV.24.11 (Moses as apostle parallel) | Unifies prophets and apostles into single revelatory economy | Recapitulation theology; prophetic/apostolic continuity — strongly Irenaean | Indicates shared theological framework with Irenaeus |
| IV.24.12–13 (Serpents authority; Isaiah/Psalm catena) | Authority over demons grounded in prophetic promises | Dense prophetic catena mapping Gospel claim onto Creator prophecy | Classic testimonia-chain style; high probability of inherited proof collection |
“Haec Marcion deleat, dum sensui salva sint… O Christum et in novis veterem!” (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.24) — cf. Irenaeus: “secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos…” (Adv. Haer. III); also AH III.11: “pervertunt Scripturas… mutilantes evangelium”; AH IV prefatory sections linking Christ’s acts with prophetic precedents.
Methodological parallels.
The core methodological feature visible here is precisely the program Irenaeus announces for his projected anti-Marcionite treatise: argumentation ex ipsis quae apud eos sunt. Tertullian repeatedly constructs his refutation not by introducing alien authorities but by demonstrating that the Marcionite gospel narratives themselves presuppose the creator’s scriptures. The Transfiguration episode is interpreted through prophetic typology (Moses, Elijah, Deuteronomy’s prophet, Habakkuk, Zechariah). This mirrors Irenaeus’s standard technique of internal refutation, especially in AH III.11 and III.12, where he argues that heretics who retain Luke or Paul inadvertently preserve testimony against themselves because these texts embed Old Testament continuity. The argumentative stance (“O Christum et in novis veterem”) reproduces the Irenaean logic that Christ’s acts disclose identity with the creator through scriptural fulfilment rather than doctrinal assertion.
Structural correspondences.
The sequence follows a recognizable Irenaean architecture: first the Christological identity question (is this the creator’s Christ?), then prophetic alignment, then sequential commentary on gospel events. Tertullian moves pericope by pericope, linking each narrative detail to a prior scriptural type—an approach strongly parallel to Irenaeus’s expository method in AH IV–V, where gospel narratives are unfolded through cumulative prophetic recapitulation. The flow monotheism → prophetic continuity → Christological identification → exegetical sequence matches Irenaeus’s pattern in the sections arguing against Marcion and other dualists.
Historical polemic parallels.
The portrayal of Marcion as a later innovator who mutilates inherited scripture aligns with AH III.3–4 (apostolic succession and recension), AH III.11 (mutilation of Luke), and AH I preface (heretics altering texts). The insistence that Moses and Elijah appearing with Christ demonstrates continuity rather than abolition echoes Irenaeus’s recurring claim that the law and prophets bear witness to Christ and cannot be rejected without invalidating the gospel itself. Tertullian’s appeal to prophetic expectation and ecclesial continuity resembles Irenaeus’s polemic that the true reading is preserved within the apostolic tradition and public teaching of the churches.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
Several features suggest reliance on an earlier structured exegetical layer rather than purely Tertullianic rhetorical invention. The step-by-step association of gospel narrative details with specific prophetic passages resembles a dominical-logia commentary or harmony-compatible scholion system. The dense accumulation of prophetic citations tied directly to narrative sequence mirrors the cumulative proof-texting method characteristic of Irenaeus’s anti-Marcionite reasoning, especially where prophetic figures are aligned typologically with Christ. The rhetorical framing sometimes appears secondary to the exegetical chain itself, as if Tertullian is elaborating a pre-existing sequence of interpretive points.
Condensed conclusion.
This chapter strongly supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the internal refutation from Marcion’s own gospel, the sequential prophetic-typological exegesis, and the historical polemic against textual mutilation align closely with Irenaeus’s announced methodology and extant argumentative patterns, suggesting inherited exegetical scaffolding rather than wholly original Tertullianic construction.
