| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian |
|---|---|
| Unde et Marcion, et qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas conversi sunt Scripturas… Nos autem etiam ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… | Quid? nunc potius ex hoc disce unum a Christo deum ostensum… Duos enim dominos nominavit, deum et mammonam… (IV.33.2–3) Argument drawn from internal Gospel wording to prove monotheism and identify the Creator — methodological parallel to refutation from retained text. |
| … quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur… | Si in mammona iniusto fideles non extitistis… Quis vobis credet quod verius est? (IV.33.4) Internal semantic analysis of Marcion’s Gospel passage to overturn Marcionite reading. |
| … arguemus eos… | Si superbiam tangit… Dies enim domini sabaoth… (IV.33.6) Reading Gospel sayings through prophetic citations to prove continuity with Creator — same polemical technique found throughout Irenaeus. |
| … ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur… | Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem… non tamen ut ab alia virtute facta sit… Christus ipse. (IV.33.7–8) Sequential exegetical argument showing continuity between Law, Prophets, and Christ using Marcion’s own Gospel framework. |
| … arguemus eos… | Facilius elementa transitura quam verba sua… confirmans hoc quoque quod de Ioanne dixerat… (IV.33.9) Appeal to textual permanence and prophetic fulfilment — argument from internal scriptural authority. |
| Passage Unit (IV.33) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.33.1 — “Non potestis deo servire et mammonae” (two masters saying) | Internal logical refutation: Christ names only two masters (God vs mammon), therefore no third alien god possible within narrative logic. | Enumeration logic (counting categories) characteristic of Irenaean reduction arguments; identity derived from narrative structure rather than external canon appeal; internal refutation from retained Lukan saying. | Suggests inherited anti-Marcion argumentative template: structured reductio based on narrative enumeration rather than spontaneous rhetoric. |
| IV.33.2 — clarification of “mammon” (wealth) | Semantic narrowing eliminates Marcionite reinterpretation; forces Creator identification as sole divine referent. | Lexical clarification → theological deduction pattern; similar to Irenaean method of resolving heretical readings via semantic constraints. | Indicates use of standardized exegetical reasoning blocks; likely drawn from prior anti-Marcion discussion traditions. |
| IV.33.3 — prophetic continuity (Jeremiah / Isaiah ethical parallels) | Demonstrates that Christ’s ethical teaching presupposes prophetic Creator tradition. | Prophetic catena used structurally (not ornamentally); Law–Prophets–Gospel continuity framework typical of Irenaeus. | Strong signal of inherited proof-chain tradition; prophetic citations arranged as identity markers. |
| IV.33.4 — John the Baptist as boundary between eras | Salvation-history structure: transition within one divine economy rather than rupture between gods. | Transitional “economy” model closely aligned with Irenaean oikonomia schema; historical sequencing emphasized. | Points toward shared theological architecture with earlier anti-Marcion frameworks. |
| IV.33.5 — argument from narrative silence (no explicit new god introduced) | If a new deity existed, Christ would identify him explicitly; absence implies Creator continuity. | Argument from narrative implication — common Irenaean polemical device; internal textual pressure rather than external authority. | Suggests systematic exegetical method rather than ad hoc polemic. |
| IV.33.6 — logical sequencing (identify term → eliminate alternative → prophetic confirmation → historical placement) | Constructs deductive chain establishing Creator identity step-by-step. | Highly schematic argumentative progression; resembles commentary structure more than rhetorical invective. | Likely reflects pre-existing exegetical skeleton expanded by Tertullian’s style. |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.33: “Non potestis deo servire et mammonae… Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem…” — Irenaeus parallels: AH III.12.12 “unum et eundem Deum praedicaverunt… lex et prophetae et evangelium”; AH IV.12.3 “non solvere legem sed implere”; AH IV.36.7 “unum Deum ostendit qui et iudicat et salvat”; AH III.2.1 “ex ipsis Scripturis quas recipiunt arguendi sunt.”
Methodological parallels.
The section exemplifies precisely the program announced by Irenaeus (“Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos”). Tertullian argues from sayings preserved in Marcion’s Gospel itself (“Non potestis deo servire et mammonae”) and treats them as internal evidence for the Creator’s identity with Christ’s God. This corresponds to Irenaeus’s repeated strategy of refutation ex concessis—using texts accepted by the heretic to demonstrate continuity with the Creator (AH III.12; III.15; IV.2). The logic that the dominical saying presupposes only two masters (God and mammon) parallels Irenaeus’s argument that the Gospel’s own language presupposes one Creator-God rather than two competing deities (AH II.1; IV.6). Likewise the appeal to prophetic citations (Jeremiah, Isaiah) to interpret Gospel material mirrors Irenaeus’s consistent exegetical technique of harmonizing dominical sayings with prophetic antecedents (AH IV.9–12).
Structural correspondences.
The argument follows a recognizably Irenaean sequence. First, monotheistic clarification: if Christ names only God and mammon, the Creator must be identical with the true God. Second, Christological identification: Christ’s teaching demonstrates continuity with prophetic revelation. Third, sequential Gospel exegesis: sayings about mammon, divine knowledge of hearts, prophetic fulfillment, John the Baptist as terminus (“Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem”) are treated as consecutive interpretive units. This stepwise progression resembles Irenaeus’s exegetical rhythm in AH IV, where Gospel pericopes are unpacked serially through prophetic antecedents rather than through purely rhetorical polemic.
Historical polemic parallels.
The portrayal of Marcion as a late innovator implicitly contrasts apostolic continuity with heretical novelty, a core Irenaean theme (AH III.3–4). The insistence that Christ fulfills rather than abolishes the law echoes Irenaeus’s anti-Marcionite insistence that the Gospel completes prophetic revelation rather than introducing a rival deity (AH IV.9.1; IV.13). The handling of John the Baptist as a boundary marker between eras corresponds to Irenaeus’s broader schema of salvation history, in which prophetic economy culminates in Christ without ontological rupture between Testaments (AH III.11; IV.20).
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
The passage exhibits features suggesting an earlier structured commentary layer. The analysis moves pericope-by-pericope, each dominical saying followed by an Old Testament parallel and theological inference, resembling dominical-logia scholia more than spontaneous rhetorical development. The repeated appeal to prophetic texts as interpretive keys implies a harmony-compatible framework typical of Irenaean exegesis, where Gospel sayings are read as sequential fulfillment of prophetic economy. The logical schema (“if only two masters are named… therefore one God”) reflects the syllogistic pattern frequently seen in Irenaeus’s refutations rather than Tertullian’s more characteristically forensic style.
Condensed assessment.
Adv. Marc. IV.33 strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the method of refutation from Marcion’s own Gospel, the sequential dominical commentary aligned with prophetic proof-texting, and the salvation-historical argument centered on John the Baptist all mirror core Irenaean exegetical strategies and suggest inherited structural scaffolding rather than purely independent Tertullianic composition.
