| 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… | Ovem et dragmam perditam quis requirit? nonne qui perdidit? … Si igitur homo non alterius est res quam creatoris… (IV.32.1) Argument from internal logic of the Gospel parable to prove the Creator as subject — methodological parallel to refutation “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur.” |
| … arguemus eos… | Ita utriusque parabolae argumentum vacat circa eum cuius non est ovis neque dragma… (IV.32.2) “Thus the argument of both parables fails regarding him to whom the sheep or coin does not belong.” — internal reductio against Marcion using retained narrative logic. |
| … quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur… | Atque adeo exultare illius est de paenitentia peccatoris… qui se professus est olim malle peccatoris paenitentiam quam mortem. (IV.32.2) Reading Gospel material through prophetic continuity to identify the Creator — same methodological posture. |
| Passage Unit (IV..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.32 — Lost Sheep / Lost Coin (ownership logic) | Uses Lukan parables accepted by Marcion to force identity between Creator and savior: the one who searches must be the one who originally possessed the lost object (humanity). | Strong Irenaean identity-chain reasoning: creator → owner → redeemer → judge must be same subject. Argument proceeds through syllogistic ownership logic (“who seeks? the one who lost; who lost? the one who possessed”). Internal refutation from retained Gospel material rather than appeal to external canon. | Highly schematic reasoning suggests inherited anti-Marcion argumentative template rather than spontaneous Tertullian rhetoric. Logical chain resembles pre-assembled exegetical unit. |
| IV.32 — proprietas argument (“whose is man?”) | Establishes that redemption presupposes prior relationship; alien god cannot reclaim what never belonged to him. | Classic Irenaean anti-Marcion motif: salvation presupposes creation; redeemer must be creator. Emphasis on proprietas mirrors Irenaean ontology of ownership and restoration. | Indicates dependence on earlier anti-Marcion framework where identity is deduced from narrative presuppositions. Structural similarity to Irenaean dialectic reduces likelihood of ad hoc construction. |
| IV.32 — Internal textual deduction method | Argument built entirely from implications inside the Lukan narrative; no reliance on external authority claims. | Matches AH III programmatic method: refute Marcion “from what they retain.” Dialectical interrogatives (“quis… nonne…”) resemble catechetical dismantling common in Irenaeus. | Suggests execution of prior exegetical strategy organized around Marcion’s Luke; commentary-like rather than polemical improvisation. |
| IV.32 — Prophetic continuity (Ezekiel citation) | Integrates prophetic tradition (“God prefers repentance to death”) into parable interpretation to demonstrate continuity between prophetic God and Christ. | Characteristic Irenaean recapitulation logic: prophecy → Gospel fulfillment → unity of divine will. Prophetic citation functions structurally within argument rather than decorative prooftexting. | Dense integration of prophetic precedent implies inherited proof-chain or testimonia tradition underlying the Latin presentation. |
“Ovem et dragmam perditam quis requirit? … is exultavit qui invenit” (Tert., Adv. Marc. IV.32.1–2); cf. “secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos” (Iren., AH III praef./III.12); also Irenaean repentance logic: Deus “non mortem peccatoris vult sed conversionem” (cf. AH III–IV recurring Ezekielian formulation).
Methodological parallels.
The argument proceeds by internal critique from the opponent’s retained Gospel material, exactly corresponding to the program announced by Irenaeus in AH III: refutation drawn from texts Marcion still preserves. Tertullian does not appeal primarily to external authority but instead derives theological conclusions from the logic embedded in the parables themselves (lost sheep, lost coin). The syllogistic structure — ownership → loss → search → recovery → joy — forces identification of the saving agent with the original creator-owner. This mirrors Irenaeus’s repeated method of demonstrating that dominical sayings preserved by heretics implicitly presuppose the Creator’s prior economy (AH III–IV frequently argue that Marcionite or Gnostic readings collapse under the internal logic of the Gospel narrative they retain). The appeal to repentance (“paenitentia peccatoris”) echoes Irenaeus’s recurrent citation of Ezekiel and related prophetic traditions emphasizing God’s preference for repentance over destruction, a favorite anti-Gnostic proof-text used to establish continuity between Old Testament Creator and Gospel redeemer.
Structural correspondences.
The sequence follows an Irenaean pattern recognizable across AH IV. First comes ontological ownership (humanity belongs to the Creator). Second, soteriological inference (only the owner can lose and recover). Third, dominical exegesis (parables read sequentially as proof of a unified divine economy). The reasoning advances from anthropology to Christology through exegetical chaining of Gospel motifs — a structural movement typical of Irenaeus’s argumentation: beginning with creation theology, proceeding to redemption, and grounding both in scriptural narrative coherence. The emphasis on logical consistency between parable structure and theology resembles Irenaeus’s extended demonstrations that scriptural narratives form a continuous “recapitulatory” economy.
Historical polemic parallels.
Marcion is implicitly framed as a late innovator whose theology disrupts narrative coherence: if humanity does not belong to the Creator, then the logic of loss and recovery collapses. This reproduces Irenaeus’s standard historical polemic: heretics introduce novelty lacking prophetic antecedent and thereby contradict both apostolic preaching and scriptural continuity (AH III–IV repeatedly insist that novelty signals falsity). The insistence that repentance belongs to the Creator aligns with Irenaeus’s polemic against dualistic systems that deny divine consistency across covenants.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
The section displays scholion-like features suggesting pre-existing exegetical material: tightly structured logical progression; dominical-logia style analysis of discrete parables; minimal rhetorical flourish compared to surrounding polemic; reliance on short argumentative syllogisms derived directly from Gospel phrasing. The method resembles catechetical anti-Marcionite commentary that could operate independently of Tertullian’s broader Latin rhetoric and aligns with the type of internal exegetical refutation described by Irenaeus as his intended anti-Marcionite project.
Condensed assessment.
Chapter IV.32 strongly supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: internal critique from Marcion’s retained Gospel, Creator-based logic derived from parabolic structure, and repentance theology tied to prophetic continuity collectively reproduce characteristic Irenaean argumentative patterns.
