|
|---|
| Passage Unit (IV.3.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.3.1 | Hypothetical reductio: if Christian teaching began with Marcion’s Luke, prior authentication would be absent | Apostolic succession as historical validation; argument framed through prior transmission chain | HIGH — assumes inherited apostolic genealogy logic characteristic of Irenaean framework |
| IV.3.2–4 | Reinterpretation of Galatians (Paul vs Peter) to neutralize Marcionite appeal | Distinction between conduct vs doctrine; Pauline criticism subordinated to apostolic consensus | HIGH — structured anti-Marcion hermeneutic resembling established interpretive schema rather than fresh exegesis |
| IV.3.4–5 | Forensic dilemma regarding textual corruption vs authenticity | Logical fork structure; collapse of opponent system through mutually exclusive alternatives | HIGH — standardized polemical reasoning suggests pre-existing argumentative toolkit |
| IV.3.6 | Assertion that attacking apostles implicates Christ (“Christum iam accusat…”) | Apostolic authority as extension of Christ’s authority; canonical rule-of-faith logic | HIGH — classic anti-heretical syllogism aligning with Irenaean polemic tradition |
| IV.3.7–8 | Luke positioned through Paul yet subordinated to wider apostolic corpus | Hierarchical apostolic structure; integration of Luke within broader canonical framework | HIGH — architectural alignment with Irenaean strategy; reads as execution of established anti-Marcion blueprint |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.3: “habuit utique authenticam paraturam … Marcion nactus epistulam Pauli ad Galatas … connititur ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum quae propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur … si apostoli quidem integrum evangelium contulerunt … quod erit germanum illud apostolorum instrumentum quod adulteros passum est” // Irenaeus, AH III: “secundum Lucam Evangelium et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes … hæc sola legitima esse dicunt … ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos”; cf. AH III.1–3 (apostolic succession and authentic transmission), III.11 (integrity of apostolic Gospel tradition against heretical mutilation).
Methodological parallels. The chapter advances an internal critique grounded in apostolic authority and textual transmission, paralleling Irenaeus’s stated plan to refute Marcion through the texts he preserves. Tertullian examines Marcion’s appeal to Paul—especially Galatians—as an attempt to undermine the authority of other apostolic witnesses, a strategy already anticipated by Irenaeus’s characterization of Marcionite practice as selective editing of Luke and Pauline material. The insistence on an “authentic preparation” and the evaluation of claims through apostolic testimony align with the Irenaean method of measuring doctrinal claims against inherited scriptural and ecclesial tradition.
Structural correspondences. The argument progresses from questions of origin and transmission (“authenticam paraturam”) to canonical authority and apostolic hierarchy, then to exegetical clarification of Pauline disputes. This mirrors the structural logic in Adversus Haereses III: establishing the authenticity of apostolic proclamation, clarifying apparent tensions within apostolic narratives, and then defending the integrity of the Gospel corpus. The movement from doctrinal premises to canonical evaluation prepares the ground for subsequent sequential Gospel exegesis.
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is again portrayed as a posterior innovator who exploits internal apostolic disputes (e.g., Gal 2) to justify doctrinal rupture. Tertullian’s defense that apostolic disagreements concerned conduct rather than doctrine reflects Irenaeus’s repeated insistence that apparent differences among apostolic figures do not undermine doctrinal unity. The emphasis on named apostolic authors and the preservation of authentic instruments parallels Irenaeus’s use of succession and historical continuity as criteria distinguishing genuine tradition from later falsification.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding. The analysis of Pauline passages within a larger canonical framework suggests reliance on an established anti-Marcionite interpretive schema in which apostolic texts are harmonized and integrated rather than set in opposition. The distinction between authentic apostolic tradition and later interpolation resembles a systematic model of textual transmission already developed in Irenaeus’s polemic. The step-by-step reasoning about apostolic authority, pseudapostles, and textual integrity reads as application of a pre-existing argumentative template.
Condensed assessment. The chapter supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework by employing identical criteria of apostolic authenticity, interpreting Pauline disputes within a unified doctrinal narrative, and framing Marcion’s position as a later distortion of a continuous apostolic tradition, consistent with the strategy anticipated in the lost “altera conscriptio.”
