stephan huller's observations: Adversus Marcionem IV.27 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His Redacted Luke

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.”	Alibi malo purgare quae reprehendunt Marcionitae in creatore. Hic enim sufficit si ea in Christo reperiuntur. (Adv. Marc. IV.27.1)“Elsewhere I prefer to purge what the Marcionites criticize in the Creator. Here it is sufficient if those same things are found in Christ.”
AH III.2.1 — “When they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse the Scriptures themselves.”	Ecce inaequalis et ipse… iubet omni petenti dare, et ipse signum petentibus non dat… Quis est tam similis dei mei Christus nisi ipsius? (Adv. Marc. IV.27.1)“Behold, he too is unequal… he commands to give to everyone who asks, yet does not give a sign to those asking… Who is so like my God as Christ himself?”
AH IV.9.1 — “The same God who proclaimed the law also sent the Gospel.”	Saepe iam fiximus nullo modo potuisse illum destructorem legis denotari si alium deum promulgasset. (Adv. Marc. IV.27.2)“We have often established that he could in no way be marked as a destroyer of the law if he had proclaimed another god.”
AH IV.12.1 — “Christ did not abolish the law but fulfilled and interpreted it.”	Iesus autem etiam interpretatus est ei legem… Nonne qui exteriora fecit… et interiora fecit? (Adv. Marc. IV.27.2)“But Jesus also interpreted the law for him… Did not the one who made the exterior also make the interior?”
AH IV.17.1 — “God prefers mercy to sacrifice.”	quo dicto aperte demonstravit… praeponentis misericordiam non modo lavacro hominis, sed etiam sacrificio… Date quae habetis eleemosynam, et omnia munda erunt vobis. (Adv. Marc. IV.27.3)“By this saying he openly demonstrated… preferring mercy not only to bodily washing but even to sacrifice… ‘Give alms from what you have, and all things will be clean for you.’”
AH IV.13.4 — “Christ confirms the prophetic teaching rather than introducing a new god.”	Porro et hic apparet illos non de deo increpitos, sed de eius disciplina a quo illis… misericordiarum opera imperabantur. (Adv. Marc. IV.27.3)“Here it is clear they were rebuked not concerning God but concerning the discipline from whom works of mercy had been commanded.”
AH III.11.7 — “The apostles did not preach another God, but the same who was announced by the prophets.”	Cuius dei vocationem et dilectionem, nisi cuius et rutam et mentam ex forma legis de decimis offerebant? (Adv. Marc. IV.27.4)“The calling and love of which God, except that one whose law prescribed tithes even of rue and mint?”
AH IV.26.1 — “The Church proves from the prophets and the Gospel that the same God is proclaimed throughout.”	Totum enim exprobrationis hoc erat quod modica curabant… Diliges dominum deum tuum… qui te vocavit ex Aegypto. (Adv. Marc. IV.27.4)“For the whole reproach was that they cared for minor things… ‘You shall love the Lord your God…’ who called you out of Egypt.”
AH II.35.4 — “Christ rebukes human pride and confirms prophetic warnings.”	Primatum quoque captantes locorum… incusat, sectam creatoris administrat… eiusmodi principes Sodomorum archontas appellantis… (Adv. Marc. IV.27.5)“He also rebukes those seeking chief places… administering the teaching of the Creator… who called such leaders ‘rulers of Sodom.’”
AH IV.16.5 — “Human traditions that distort the law are rebuked.”	Invehitur et in doctores ipsos legis, quod onerarent alios importabilibus oneribus… docentes praecepta doctrinas hominum. (Adv. Marc. IV.27.6–7)“He attacks the teachers of the law themselves, because they burdened others with unbearable burdens… teaching commandments as doctrines of men.”
AH IV.27.2 — “The prophets reproved leaders who oppressed the poor.”	docentes praecepta doctrinas hominum… amantes munera… diripientes iudicata pauperam… (Adv. Marc. IV.27.7)“teaching commandments as doctrines of men… loving gifts… plundering the judgments of the poor.”
AH III.12.12 — “We will refute them from the very things they retain.”	Quam vero clavem habebant legis doctores nisi interpretationem legis? ad cuius intellectum neque ipsi adibant… neque alios admittebant… (Adv. Marc. IV.27.9)“What key did the teachers of the law have except the interpretation of the law? Yet they themselves did not enter into its understanding… nor did they allow others.”
AH IV.9.3 — “Christ’s rebukes confirm the justice of the Creator.”	Sed haec omnia ad infuscandum creatorem ingerebat… Tanto magis ergo demerendum docebat quem timendum ingerebat. (Adv. Marc. IV.27.10)“But he introduced all these things to darken the Creator… therefore he taught that the one to be feared must all the more be won over.”

Passage Unit (IV.27.__)	Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke)	Structural / “Irenaean” Method Signal	Redaction & Dependence Assessment
IV.27.1 Opening methodological statement	Declares strategy: defend Creator indirectly by showing same traits in Christ	Explicit inversion method (“don’t defend Creator; show Christ behaves same”) — classic anti-Marcion continuity logic	Strong indicator of inherited polemical template rather than spontaneous rhetoric
IV.27.2–3 Accusation catalogue (Marcionite contrasts)	Lists alleged contradictions: commands vs refusals, light vs concealment, mercy vs “woe”	Structured objection list resembles Antitheses-style dossier	Suggests pre-existing argumentative schema
IV.27.4 Ritual washing discourse	Christ’s critique proves Creator made both inner and outer	Anthropological unity argument (body + soul one creator)	Strong alignment with anti-dualist framework known from earlier anti-heretical tradition
IV.27.5–6 Law interpretation vs abolition	Christ clarifies Law rather than rejecting it	“Fulfillment not opposition” continuity model	Recurring structured response pattern across Book IV indicates template use
IV.27.7 Shema-based reasoning	Gospel teaching presupposes Creator worship	Torah command embedded as continuity anchor	Lexical-theological argument typical of inherited proof logic
IV.27.8–9 Prophetic denunciation catena	Isaiah-style rebuke applied to Pharisaic hypocrisy	Dense prophetic chaining (testimonia-style)	Looks like compiled proof collection inserted into exegesis
IV.27.10 Similarity-of-action identity argument	Christ’s behavior mirrors Creator → same deity	Identity via functional equivalence (core anti-Marcion formula)	Highly schematic; repeated elsewhere → source tradition likely
IV.27.11 Accusation reversal	Traits criticized in Creator become proof of Christ’s identity with Creator	Polemical inversion technique	Standardized anti-Marcion reasoning block
IV.27.12 Key-of-knowledge legal argument	Debate framed as interpretation authority, not competing scriptures	Scriptural hermeneutics continuity model	Indicates structured exegetical commentary rather than ad hoc polemic

“iubet omni petenti dare … signum petentibus non dat … Nonne qui exteriora fecit … et interiora fecit?” (Tert., Adv. Marc. IV.27) ; cf. “secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos” (Iren., AH III praef.; also AH IV passim on Creator as maker of interior/exterior and prophetic continuity).

Methodological parallels

The chapter continues the distinctive Irenaean program explicitly announced in Adversus Haereses III: refutation derived from the opponent’s own retained texts. Tertullian argues entirely from sayings preserved within the Marcionite Gospel (clearly Lukan material: giving to petitioners, refusal of a sign, woes against Pharisees, interior/exterior cleansing, almsgiving, law-interpretation discourse). The method is internal critique rather than external proof.

This reproduces Irenaeus’s recurrent technique:

AH III repeatedly emphasizes arguing “from what they still preserve,” i.e., using Marcion’s Luke and Pauline corpus against Marcion himself.
Tertullian’s logic mirrors that formula: contradictions alleged by Marcionites are dissolved by demonstrating that the same dominical sayings presuppose the Creator’s law and prophetic framework.

Particularly Irenaean is the argument that Jesus’ criticisms of Pharisees presuppose the legitimacy of the Law rather than its abolition. This corresponds to AH IV, where Christ corrects misinterpretations of Mosaic practice but affirms the same divine economy.

Structural correspondences

The argument unfolds in a sequence characteristic of Irenaeus’s exegetical architecture:

Apparent contradiction raised: Marcionites accuse the Creator of inconsistency; Tertullian responds by showing equivalent paradoxes within Christ’s sayings (“iubet dare… signum non dat”).
Christological premise: Christ’s behavior mirrors the Creator; therefore the same God stands behind both.
Law interpretation: discussion of ritual purity shifts toward moral interiority (“exteriora… interiora”), exactly the type of hermeneutical move Irenaeus repeatedly attributes to Christ in AH IV.
Sequential Gospel exegesis: Pharisaic banquet, cleansing metaphor, almsgiving, tithing herbs, love of God, honor-seeking, burdensome teachers—these pericopes are chained together like scholia.
Prophetic grounding: Isaiah citations reinforce continuity between Gospel critique and prophetic tradition.

This structural chaining of Gospel logia plus prophetic testimonia is strongly Irenaean in shape.

Historical polemic parallels

The polemic treats Marcion as a late innovator misreading inherited texts:

Christ’s critique of Pharisees is framed not as rejection of the Law but as restoration of its authentic meaning — a central Irenaean claim (AH IV frequently insists Christ fulfills and interprets Mosaic institutions rather than abolishing them).
The Creator’s authority is defended through appeal to scriptural continuity and prophetic precedent.
Marcionite accusations are portrayed as historically implausible because they require positing a new, previously unknown god — a standard Irenaean argumentative move.

The insistence that Christ would not demand supreme love for a newly revealed deity (“novo et recenti deo”) echoes Irenaeus’s repeated claim that true revelation is ancient and prophetic rather than sudden innovation.

Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding

Several features suggest adaptation of earlier anti-Marcionite scholia:

Step-by-step commentary through Lukan pericopes resembles a running exegesis rather than free rhetorical polemic.
Dominical sayings are treated as discrete logical units, each proving continuity with the Creator.
The “interior/exterior” anthropology parallels Irenaean language about the same God forming both flesh and soul.
The repeated syllogistic structure (“if Christ interprets the Law, he presupposes the Lawgiver”) resembles catechetical anti-heretical argumentation rather than purely Tertullianic forensic rhetoric.
Isaiah proof-texts integrated directly into Gospel interpretation match Irenaeus’s favored prophetic-exegetical pattern in AH IV.

Condensed assessment

Chapter IV.27 strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the internal critique from Marcion’s retained Gospel, sequential Lukan scholia, prophetic proof-text chaining, and emphasis on continuity between Christ and the Creator replicate methodological and structural patterns characteristic of Irenaeus’s announced but otherwise lost Adversus Marcionem.