| 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…” | Etiam invitatoris parabola cui magis parti occurrat expende. (IV.31.1) “Consider also to which side the parable of the inviter better corresponds.” |
| … quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur… (argument from retained Gospel material) | Hanc si Christus… creatoris est forma… (IV.31.1) “If Christ forbids seeking recompense… this is the form of the Creator.” |
| … arguemus eos… (refutation through internal reading of their own texts) | Excusant se invitati… (IV.31.3–4) — internal critique of the parable’s logic against Marcionite interpretation. |
| Marcion… decurtantes… (Marcion mutilates Scripture) | Bene quod et motus, negat enim Marcion moveri deum suum… ita et hoc meus est. (IV.31.5) “Good that he was moved — for Marcion denies that his god is moved; thus here too he is mine (the Creator’s).” |
| … ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur… | Quid ex hoc ordine… secundum dispositionem et praedicationes creatoris recensendo… (IV.31.7) — argument from narrative structure/order of Gospel tradition. |
| Passage Unit (IV..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.31.1–3 | Banquet invitation parable interpreted as staged salvation history (initial invitation → refusal) | Sequential historical economy; invitation presupposes prior relationship; anti-sudden-revelation logic | Strong Irenaean alignment; likely inherited salvation-history schema |
| IV.31.4–6 | Prophetic messenger stage (prophets as prior summons) | Law–Prophets–Gospel continuity; prophetic preparatio model | Indicates pre-existing anti-Marcion exegetical framework |
| IV.31.7–9 | Israel’s refusal → logical necessity of earlier dealings | Narrative coherence used against Marcion; reductio of sudden alien god | Classic Irenaean argumentative skeleton (“ordo / dispositio”) |
| IV.31.10–12 | Secondary invitation and Gentile inclusion | Recapitulation pattern (Israel first → Gentiles later); historical unfolding | Strong sign of inherited anti-Marcion salvation-economy interpretation |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.31: “creatoris est invitasse… misit ad convivas admonendos… excusant se invitati… de plateis et vicis civitatis facere sublectionem… de viis et sepibus colligi” — Irenaeus, AH III.12.12 / IV.36.1 (parallels): “unum eundemque Deum… qui per prophetas vocavit… et per Filium convocat… invitatos quidem recusasse, alios vero de gentibus substitutos”; cf. AH III.2.1 “ex his quae adhuc apud eos sunt arguere,” and AH IV.9.3 “prophetae ante vocaverunt… Dominus postea consummavit vocationem.”
Methodological parallels.
The passage exemplifies precisely the procedure announced by Irenaeus in AH III (“ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos”). Tertullian argues not from external authority but from Marcion’s own Gospel narrative (parable of the banquet) interpreted internally against Marcionite theology. This mirrors Irenaeus’s method of refuting heretics by demonstrating continuity between prophetic preparation and Christ’s teaching. The repeated insistence that the invitations occurred in stages — patriarchs, prophets, then Christ — reflects the Irenaean technique of cumulative salvation-history argumentation rather than purely rhetorical refutation. The appeal to Isaiah 58:7, Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, and Exodus within a Gospel exegesis framework corresponds to Irenaeus’s frequent interweaving of prophetic testimony into dominical sayings (cf. AH IV.2.2; IV.9.1–3; IV.34.1).
Structural correspondences.
The argument proceeds in an order strongly reminiscent of Irenaean structure: first establish continuity with the Creator (monotheistic identity), then interpret Christ’s teaching as fulfillment of prophetic patterns, then move into sequential exegesis of a specific dominical logion. The parable is unfolded step-by-step: invitation → refusal → prophetic admonition → substitution of new guests → inclusion of gentiles. This layered narrative sequencing resembles the extended exegetical chains in AH IV, where Irenaeus frequently reconstructs a salvation-historical “order” (ordo/dispositio) linking law, prophets, and gospel. Tertullian’s repeated emphasis on “ordo,” “dispositio,” and staged calling parallels Irenaeus’s insistence on divine economy (οἰκονομία) unfolding progressively (AH IV.20.7; IV.26.1).
Historical polemic parallels.
Both authors frame Marcion as a posterior innovator who disrupts inherited scriptural continuity. Tertullian’s insistence that invitations were already issued through patriarchs and prophets echoes Irenaeus’s argument that heretics detach Christ from Israel’s history by rejecting prophetic antecedents (AH III.11.7; IV.6.6). The argument that the same God both invites and judges aligns with Irenaeus’s recurring polemic against dividing the just judge from the good God (AH III.25.2; IV.40.1). The rhetorical aside noting that Marcion denies divine “movement” or emotion (“bene quod et motus… negat enim Marcion moveri deum suum”) parallels Irenaeus’s criticisms of Marcionite and Valentinian theological abstractions that deny scriptural depictions of divine engagement (AH II.28.4).
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
The passage reads less like an independent rhetorical invention and more like inherited scholia. Indicators include: systematic matching of Gospel parable elements to prophetic citations; a dominical-logia style of argumentation treating the saying as part of a continuous salvation-history commentary; and harmony-compatible reasoning where narrative elements are aligned typologically rather than strictly tied to a uniquely Lukan wording. The consistent mapping of each narrative stage to a prophetic antecedent suggests dependence on a pre-existing anti-Marcionite exegetical framework focused on demonstrating prophetic continuity — precisely the project Irenaeus announces for his lost anti-Marcion treatise.
Condensed assessment.
Adv. Marc. IV.31 strongly supports the hypothesis of dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the internal refutation from Marcion’s retained Gospel, salvation-historical structuring, prophetic cross-referencing, and sequential dominical exegesis closely parallel the methodological and structural patterns found throughout Irenaeus’s AH III–IV corpus.
