| Irenaeus | Tertullian |
|---|---|
| AH IV.9.1 — “The same God who proclaimed the law also sent the Gospel.” | Timete eum qui postquam occiderit, potestatem habet mittendi in gehennam… creatorem utique significans. (Adv. Marc. IV.28.3)“Fear him who, after killing, has power to cast into Gehenna… clearly indicating the Creator.” |
| AH IV.26.1 — “The Church proves from the prophets and the Gospel that the same God is proclaimed throughout.” | Hae sunt novae doctrinae novi Christi, quas olim famuli creatoris initiaverunt. (Adv. Marc. IV.28.8)“These are the new teachings of the new Christ which long ago the servants of the Creator had initiated.” |
| AH III.11.7 — “The apostles did not preach another God, but the same who was announced by the prophets.” | Plane ita. Ipse enim tunc fuerat in Moyse… spiritus scilicet creatoris. (Adv. Marc. IV.28.10)“Clearly so. For he himself had then been in Moses… namely the Spirit of the Creator.” |
| Passage Unit (IV..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.28.1–3 | Leaven of the Pharisees; “nothing hidden that will not be revealed.” Used to deny revelation of an unknown god. | Interpretation constrained by narrative context — classic Irenaean anti-heretical rule: sayings interpreted within immediate discourse rather than speculative theology. | Suggests commentary-style exegesis rather than free polemic; reads like inherited interpretive framework. |
| IV.28.4–6 | Fear of one who casts into Gehenna → judicial authority attributed to Creator. | Identity-by-function logic (judge = creator). Typical Irenaean continuity reasoning: same moral/judicial structure implies same deity. | Strong signal of anti-Marcion template reused across multiple pericopes. |
| IV.28.7–9 | Confession/denial before men → eschatological reciprocity. | “Si… ergo…” syllogistic chains; judicial symmetry (confessor confessed; denier denied). | Structured logical schema resembles Irenaean argumentative pattern rather than rhetorical improvisation. |
| IV.28.10–12 | Blasphemy against Spirit unforgivable → continuity of prophetic Spirit. | Spirit identity across Testaments (prophets → Christ → apostles). Core Irenaean recapitulation logic. | Suggests reliance on established anti-Marcion doctrinal schema. |
| IV.28.13–15 | Balaam analogy: prophetic inspiration precedes Gospel promise of Spirit. | Prophetic precedent used to neutralize claim of novelty — hallmark Irenaean move. | Feels like testimonia-style inherited exegesis. |
| IV.28.16–18 | Inheritance dispute narrative. Christ’s refusal reframed as alignment with Mosaic authority rather than opposition. | Reversal of Marcionite antithesis through salvation-history continuity. | Sequential reinterpretation consistent with running commentary structure. |
| IV.28.19–23 | Parable of rich fool → Creator’s judgment affirmed internally from Luke. | Narrative coherence used as polemical weapon; theological conclusions drawn from internal logic of story. | Strong indicator of pre-existing anti-Marcion exegetical framework proceeding pericope-by-pericope. |
“Cavete… a fermento pharisaeorum… Nihil autem opertum, quod non patefiet…” (Tert., Adv. Marc. IV.28); cf. “secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos” (Iren., AH III) + recurrent Irenaean formulae on hidden/revealed divine economy (AH III–IV passim: prophetic obscurity → later revelation).
Methodological parallels.
The chapter proceeds according to the Irenaean program explicitly announced in AH III: refutation drawn from the opponent’s retained materials rather than from external authority. Tertullian’s reading of dominical sayings (“nihil opertum… nihil absconditum…”) interprets them not as disclosure of a previously unknown god but as unveiling of what already belonged to the Creator’s prophetic economy. This mirrors Irenaeus’s characteristic internal critique: heretics unwittingly testify to the Creator through the very texts they preserve. The argumentative logic remains Irenaean—if revelation presupposes concealment, concealment presupposes prophetic preparation; therefore Marcion’s Gospel itself implies continuity with the Creator. The repeated appeal to judgement (gehenna, confession/denial, remission vs retention) follows the same anti-Marcionite tactic found throughout AH III–IV: extracting doctrinal consequences from the Gospel sayings that Marcion retains.
Structural correspondences.
The structure unfolds in a recognizably Irenaean sequence. First, moral critique grounded in prophetic tradition (hypocrisy of Pharisees as already condemned within the Creator’s economy). Second, hermeneutical axiom: hidden things become manifest—not introduction of a new deity but fulfillment of earlier revelation. Third, sequential exegesis of dominical logia (fear of the one who casts into Gehenna; confession before men; blasphemy against the Spirit; divine instruction through the Spirit; Balaam precedent; Moses comparison; parable of the rich fool). The chain-like progression from saying to saying resembles Irenaeus’s concatenated proof-text method in AH IV, where Gospel passages are linked in ordered succession to demonstrate unity of the divine economy.
Historical polemic parallels.
Marcion appears as posterior innovator whose claims collapse under historical scrutiny. The insistence that fear of post-mortem judgement, remission of sins, prophetic precedent (Isaiah, Numbers, Exodus) and divine continuity belong to the Creator reproduces Irenaeus’s repeated claim that heretics introduce novelty lacking prophetic or apostolic precedent. The appeal to scriptural history (Balaam, Moses, prophetic denunciations of hypocrisy) parallels AH’s strategy of embedding Gospel interpretation within Israel’s historical narrative to refute dualistic separation.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
The passage displays features consistent with earlier scholion-style material rather than purely Tertullianic rhetoric: sequential dominical-logia analysis; formulaic syllogisms (hidden → revealed; confession → divine acknowledgement; judgement → Creator’s authority); integration of Gospel pericopes with prophetic exempla; minimal rhetorical digression during the exegetical chain. The arrangement suggests adaptation of an earlier harmony-compatible anti-Marcionite commentary in which individual sayings were interpreted systematically against Marcionite claims.
Condensed assessment.
Chapter IV.28 strongly aligns with an Irenaean exegetical framework: internal critique from Marcion’s retained Gospel, structured chaining of prophetic concealment and revelation, and polemic against theological novelty all correspond to the method announced in AH III and repeatedly exemplified in AH IV, supporting the hypothesis of dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite source.
