| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian |
|---|---|
| Unde et Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt Scripturas… Nos autem etiam ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “Wherefore Marcion and his followers have turned to mutilating the Scriptures… but we, even from those things still preserved among them, will refute them…” | Parabolarum congruentiam ubique recognosco exigere. (IV.30.1) “I recognize that the coherence of the parables must everywhere be required.” |
| … quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur… (argument from retained gospel material) | Simile est regnum dei… (IV.30.1–2) — sequential interpretation of parables within Marcion’s retained Gospel. |
| … arguemus eos… (refutation using their own retained texts) | Quotiens adhuc se iudicem ostendit et in iudice creatorem? (IV.30.4) “How often does he still show himself as judge — and in the judge, the Creator?” |
| Marcion… decurtantes… quae ipsi minoraverunt (Marcion mutilates texts) | Congruit et haec coniectura mendicantibus argumenta… (IV.30.3) — polemical rebuttal against Marcionite interpretive alteration. |
| Passage Unit (IV..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.30.1–3 (Sabbath healing / donkey example) | Internal refutation from Marcion’s retained Lukan narrative; shows Christ acting within logic of Creator’s law | Internal exegesis instead of canonical appeal; argument derived from narrative implication rather than external authority; matches Irenaeus AH III method (“from what they retain”) | Strong sign of inherited anti-Marcion template; reads like structured proof unit rather than spontaneous polemic |
| IV.30.4–6 (Law fulfillment logic) | Christ’s action interpreted as confirmation of law (“confirmavit, non dissolvit”) | Fulfillment-not-abolition hermeneutic characteristic of Irenaeus; continuity of divine economy emphasized | Suggests pre-existing theological scaffold; Tertullian likely expanding earlier interpretive tradition |
| IV.30.7–10 (Parable congruentia / harmonization principle) | Multiple sayings aligned to demonstrate unity of Creator and Christ | Meta-hermeneutic statement (“parabolarum congruentiam”) reflects systematic harmonizing framework; typical of Irenaean scriptural unity logic | Indicates commentary-style structure; possible inheritance from organized anti-Marcion dossier |
| IV.30.11–14 (Mustard seed interpretation) | Salvation-historical allegory: Father → Son → kingdom growth | Logos-economy structure resembling Irenaean theology; symbolic role assignment within salvation history | Feels schematic rather than ad hoc; likely part of prior exegetical pattern |
| IV.30.15–18 (Judgment reductio) | Logical proof that salvation and exclusion require one judging deity | Classic anti-Marcion syllogism: justice + goodness unified; deductive theological reasoning | Strong Irenaean fingerprint; matches repeated AH argumentative logic |
| IV.30.19–22 (Isaiah prophetic citation) | Prophetic validation of Christ’s actions | Dense prophetic catena functioning structurally rather than rhetorically | Suggests use of pre-compiled proof chain tradition |
| IV.30 overall structure | Sequential traversal of Lukan pericope leading to Creator identity conclusion | Template pattern: Gospel episode → Law continuity → Prophetic precedent → Unity conclusion | High probability of earlier anti-Marcion framework underlying Tertullian’s redaction |
“Unusquisque vestrum sabbatis non solvit asinum aut bovem… ergo secundum condicionem legis operatus legem confirmavit” (Tert., Adv. Marc. IV.30.1); cf. “non solvere legem sed implere… idem Deus legis et evangelii” / “quae ante praedicata sunt in lege et prophetis in evangelio ostenduntur” (Iren., AH IV passim; cf. AH III: “Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos”).
Methodological parallels
The chapter continues the Irenaean program explicitly announced in AH III: refutation from the adversary’s retained Gospel material. Tertullian’s argument depends almost entirely on internal critique: Marcion’s own Lukan pericopes (Sabbath healing, mustard seed, leaven, closed door, exclusion from the kingdom) are interpreted so that they presuppose the Creator’s law and prophetic economy. This mirrors Irenaeus’s standard procedure of arguing that heretical readings unintentionally confirm continuity between law, prophets, and Christ (e.g., AH IV repeatedly demonstrates that Gospel sayings validate Mosaic legislation rather than abolish it).
Key methodological correspondences:
The Sabbath healing argument (“secundum condicionem legis operatus legem confirmavit”) parallels Irenaeus’s frequent claim that Christ’s Sabbath acts interpret rather than abolish the law; Irenaeus similarly treats Christ’s healings as revelatory clarification of divine intention, not contradiction. The parable interpretations (mustard seed, leaven) proceed via typological continuity—again a hallmark of Irenaeus’s method, where Christ’s parables reveal prophetic seeds already planted within the Creator’s dispensation. The insistence that judgment imagery (“cluserit ostium… illic erit fletus et frendor dentium”) must belong to the same God as the kingdom echoes Irenaeus’s repeated argument that reward and punishment cannot be split between two deities (AH IV: one judge, one economy).
Thus the methodological pattern is precisely that anticipated by Irenaeus’s programmatic statement: using what Marcion retains (Luke) to dismantle Marcionite theology internally.
Structural correspondences
The chapter unfolds in a structure strongly aligned with Irenaean exegetical sequencing:
First, legal continuity: the Sabbath example establishes that Christ operates within the Creator’s legislative framework.
Second, Christological identification: the “filius hominis” and the sower of the mustard seed are interpreted as belonging to the Creator’s domain because the world/garden imagery presupposes created reality.
Third, sequential Gospel exegesis: parables are examined one by one (mustard seed → leaven → householder closing the door → exclusion/judgment), forming a chain of dominical sayings interpreted in continuity with prophetic precedent.
Fourth, theological synthesis: kingdom and judgment cannot be divided between two gods; therefore Creator and Christ must be identical.
This structure closely resembles Irenaeus’s Book IV exegesis, where argument typically moves from law to prophecy to Gospel fulfillment through chained scriptural interpretation.
Historical polemic parallels
The portrayal of Marcion as a late innovator remains consistent with Irenaean polemic. Tertullian argues that Marcion’s dualistic scheme collapses logically: if one god punishes and another saves, the economy becomes incoherent. This reflects Irenaeus’s recurrent claim that heretical systems introduce unnecessary novelty and divide divine action artificially.
Specific parallels to Irenaeus:
The insistence on a single divine economy where kingdom and judgment belong to the same God parallels Irenaeus’s rule-of-faith emphasis on one Creator and one Judge. The appeal to prophetic fulfillment (Isaiah cited in connection with divine rising to judge) mirrors Irenaeus’s constant appeal to prophetic foreknowledge as proof against novelty. The interpretive reliance on ecclesial tradition (“recognosco exigere… parabolarum congruentiam”) reflects Irenaeus’s concern for canonical coherence across scriptural strata.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding
Several features suggest a pre-Tertullianic exegetical layer consistent with an Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework:
The dominical-logia style treatment: discrete Gospel units are analyzed sequentially rather than rhetorically digressed upon, resembling scholion-like commentary.
The harmony-compatible reasoning: parables are interpreted through typological equivalence rather than purely polemical rhetoric, suggesting earlier catechetical exegesis.
The repeated logical syllogism: if Christ acts according to law → law confirmed → Creator affirmed; if kingdom and judgment coexist → single deity; this resembles Irenaeus’s characteristic argumentative pattern.
Minimal forensic rhetoric compared with surrounding Tertullianic passages indicates incorporation of structured exegetical material.
Condensed assessment
Chapter IV.30 strongly reinforces dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: internal critique using Marcion’s retained Gospel, sequential dominical exegesis anchored in prophetic fulfillment, and the insistence on one divine economy replicate both the methodological program announced in AH III and the structural patterns typical of Irenaeus’s Book IV.
