|
|---|
| Passage Unit (IV.25…) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method | Signals Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.25.1–3 | Confiteor tibi / revelation to the μικροί | Internal refutation from retained dominical saying; revelation presupposes prior concealment | Strong: salvation-historical schema (hidden → revealed) suggests inherited anti-Marcion template |
| IV.25.3–6 | Concealment vs revelation logic | Creator’s prophetic obscurity as pedagogical instrument | High Irenaean signature: economy continuity rather than dualistic rupture |
| IV.25.6–9 | Isaian prophetic chain | Prophetic catena establishing creator continuity | Dense proof-chain suggests pre-assembled testimonia block |
| IV.25.9–11 | Unknown God critique | Epistemological dilemma: revelation impossible without prior relationship | Classic internal logical refutation pattern associated with Irenaean polemic |
| IV.25.11–14 | “Omnia tradita sunt mihi” | Logos/handing-over interpreted as creator ownership | Structural continuity argument typical of anti-Marcion recapitulation method |
| IV.25.14–17 | “No one knows the Father except the Son” | Ignorance = partial knowledge within same economy, not new deity | Strong parallel to Irenaean “progressive revelation” logic |
| IV.25.17–20 | Lawyer question & Torah linkage | Gospel ethics grounded in Deuteronomic commandment | Law → Gospel continuity chain; modular proof unit |
| IV.25 overall | Sequential Luke exegesis | Refutation from retained text rather than external authority | Highly schematic; reads like commentary derived from earlier dossier |
“dignus est operarius mercede sua … excusavit praeceptum illud creatoris de vasis aureis et argenteis Aegyptiorum auferendis” (Tert., Adv. Marc. IV.24–25); cf. Irenaeus, AH IV.30: defence of the Exodus spoils (“spolia Aegyptiorum”) as just recompense and typological exodus, together with the methodological program of AH III (“secundum Lucam Evangelium… decurtantes… Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos”).
Methodological parallels.
The Egyptian-spoils argument is not an incidental aside but a clear example of the shared anti-Marcionite method: refutation from within retained scriptural material. Tertullian argues that Christ’s saying “dignus est operarius mercede sua” retroactively justifies the Exodus command to take Egyptian gold, thereby demonstrating continuity between Gospel logia and the Creator’s prior acts. This precisely mirrors Irenaeus’s strategy in AH IV.30, where the spoiling of Egypt is defended as righteous compensation for labour and as a typological precedent for Christian use of worldly goods. In both authors the logic is internal: Marcion’s Gospel sayings themselves require acceptance of the Creator’s justice. The argumentative move aligns with Irenaeus’s programmatic statement that Marcion will be refuted “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur,” i.e., by the very texts he retains (Luke/Paul).
Structural correspondences.
The chapter unfolds in a recognizably Irenaean sequence:
(1) Gospel logion interpreted (mission discourse; worker worthy of wages).
(2) Retrojection into Mosaic law (Deut 25:4; Exodus spoils).
(3) Demonstration of continuity of divine economy (Creator = Christ’s Father).
(4) Typological or economic argument (historical Exodus → present Christian practice).
This structure reproduces the exegetical pattern frequently seen in AH IV, where dominical sayings are chained to Mosaic precedent to establish unity of revelation. The Egyptian-spoils discussion fits directly into this pattern: Gospel ethics are treated as interpretive keys unlocking the justice of controversial Old Testament narratives.
Historical polemic parallels.
Both writers confront the same Marcionite objection: that the Creator’s command to despoil Egypt proves moral inferiority. Irenaeus counters by redefining the act as legitimate recompense for labour and a type of Christian salvation; Tertullian repeats the same defence, explicitly grounding it in the maxim that labour deserves wages. The polemical framing is identical: Marcion’s moral critique collapses because Gospel teaching presupposes the same judicial logic attributed to the Creator. The shared apologetic trajectory—Creator’s justice → Christ’s teaching → continuity of economy—is characteristic of Irenaeus’s broader anti-Marcionite argumentation.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
Several features suggest dependence upon an earlier scholion-style anti-Marcionite tradition:
First, the dominical-logia structure: a discrete Gospel phrase (“dignus est operarius…”) serves as lemma followed by layered scriptural justification, a format common in Irenaeus’s exegetical chains.
Second, typological reasoning identical to AH IV.30: historical Exodus interpreted as figure of Christian redemption and ethical economy.
Third, legal-forensic logic (compensation for labour) deployed in nearly the same way, suggesting reuse of established argumentative motifs rather than spontaneous rhetorical invention.
Fourth, the integration of Marcionite objections into the flow of exegesis, indicating an inherited polemical framework already structured around specific Marcionite criticisms.
Condensed assessment.
The Egyptian-spoils material (IV.24–25) strongly reinforces dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the methodological reliance on internal Gospel proof, the structural chaining of dominical sayings to Mosaic precedent, and the specific defence of the Exodus plundering parallel Irenaeus AH IV.30 so closely that Tertullian’s discussion reads as a Latinized continuation or adaptation of an already established anti-Marcionite exegetical tradition.
