| Irenaeus (b) | Tertullian (a) |
|---|---|
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “...from those things still preserved among them, we will refute them…” | Sed quatenus ex his revincendus es quae recepisti, sic tibi occurram… (IV.34.3) “But insofar as you must be refuted from those things which you have received, I will meet you on that basis…” Explicit methodological echo: argument directed against opponent from material “you have received” — functional equivalent of arguing from retained texts. |
| …arguemus eos… “…we will refute them…” | Habes itaque Christum ultro vestigia ubique creatoris ineuntem… (IV.34.7) “Thus you have Christ everywhere following the footsteps of the Creator…” Demonstration from Gospel material itself to prove continuity with Creator — internal refutation strategy parallel to Irenaeus. |
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur… “…from those things still preserved among them…” | Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit… Respondebimus ad haec, ipsa scriptura revincente oculos eius… (IV.34.11) “But Marcion thinks otherwise… We will respond to these points, Scripture itself refuting his claims…” Appeal to the text itself as refutation — closely aligned with Irenaeus’s stated method. |
| Passage Unit (IV..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.34.1–3 | Divorce saying interpreted internally from Marcion’s Gospel; Christ explains Mosaic concession | Explicit methodological statement: “revincendus ex his quae recepisti” — refutation from retained material; internal refutation strategy matching AH III program | Strong indicator of inherited anti-Marcion method; programmatic execution rather than spontaneous polemic |
| IV.34.4–6 | Casuistic analysis of marriage/divorce; conditional parsing of Mosaic law | Harmonization logic (“law fulfilled not destroyed”); concession-for-hardness model typical of Irenaean salvation economy | Reads like pre-existing exegetical solution expanded rhetorically by Tertullian |
| IV.34.7–9 | Polemic against Marcionite marital practice; internal contradiction exposed | Forensic inversion (“you yourselves…”); standard anti-heretical dialectic seen in Irenaeus | Possible editorial overlay — Tertullianic rhetorical expansion over inherited framework |
| IV.34.10–12 | Transition to Rich Man & Lazarus linked to prior John reference; narrative sequencing defended | Explicit compositional defense of pericope order; sequential commentary through Luke; salvation-historical continuity | Strong “source-smell”: looks like commentary following pre-structured Lukan order |
| IV.34.13–14 | Underworld geography (inferi vs sinus Abrahae) used to block dualist eschatology | Anti-dualism through internal exegesis; reinterpretation of Marcionite two-tier eschatology; unity-of-economy logic | Likely inherited anti-Marcion dossier material; technical theological structuring |
| IV.34.15–17 | “Moses and the prophets” as final admonition; prophetic continuity emphasized | Classic Irenaean move: prophetic witness → Gospel continuity → unity of God; pastoral-judicial framing | Strong alignment with Irenaean argumentative template |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.34 — strongest Latin correspondences (opening line):
Tertullian: “Moyses propter duritiam cordis vestri praecepit libellum repudii dare… a primordio autem non fuit sic… quod deus iunxit homo disiunxerit?” — Irenaeus: “non dissolvere legem venit sed adimplere… recapitulationem legis in Christo ostendens” (AH III.12; IV.13; IV.34 passim); also cf. Irenaeus’ anti-Marcionite programmatic line: “Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos…” (AH III, preface against Marcionite mutilation of Luke/Paul).
Methodological parallels
The chapter operates exactly according to the Irenaean strategy announced in AH III: refutation built from the adversary’s retained Gospel material. Tertullian argues from dominical sayings accepted by Marcionites (divorce logia, rich man/Lazarus, Abraham’s bosom) and forces them to testify to the Creator. This internal critique parallels Irenaeus’ repeated method: argue that the same Gospel passages Marcion retains undermine his dualism (cf. AH III.11–12, where Luke’s text is used against heretics; AH IV.2–4 where prophetic continuity is demonstrated from accepted scriptures).
The technique of harmonizing Mosaic legislation with Christ’s teaching mirrors Irenaeus’ standard hermeneutic: the apparent tension between law and gospel is resolved by recapitulation and pedagogical accommodation (“propter duritiam cordis”), a formulation appearing repeatedly in AH IV (esp. IV.15–16). The emphasis that Christ explains rather than abolishes Moses corresponds closely to Irenaeus’ recurring claim that Christ clarifies prior revelation rather than opposing it.
The use of prophetic prooftexts to interpret Gospel sayings reflects Irenaeus’ preferred exegetical method. Tertullian draws Deuteronomy, Malachi, Amos, Isaiah into sequential exegesis; Irenaeus likewise aligns prophetic material with Gospel teaching to show unity of the Creator’s economy (AH IV.9, IV.20, IV.34).
Structural correspondences
The argumentative sequence follows an Irenaean pattern:
-
Law vs Gospel reconciliation: discussion of divorce law (Deut 24) framed through Christ’s clarification. Irenaeus regularly begins from Mosaic legislation and demonstrates its fulfilment in Christ (AH IV.13–16).
-
Christology rooted in creation: insistence that the one who joined male and female is identical with Christ’s Father echoes Irenaeus’ anti-Marcion polemic asserting continuity between Creator and Christ (AH III.16; IV.6).
-
Sequential Gospel exegesis: Tertullian proceeds through logia step by step (divorce → John the Baptist → rich man/Lazarus), paralleling Irenaeus’ extended exegetical chains that follow narrative order rather than topical rhetoric (cf. AH III.18; IV.33–36).
-
Eschatological clarification: Abraham’s bosom interpreted as intermediate state, integrated into broader Creator-based soteriology; this resembles Irenaeus’ staged eschatology with intermediate states and recapitulative judgment (AH V.31–36).
This structural logic reads less like spontaneous polemic and more like a pre-existing exegetical commentary being reused.
Historical polemic parallels
The portrayal of Marcion as distorting Scripture aligns directly with Irenaeus’ description of Marcionites “curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul” (AH III preface). Tertullian’s argument assumes precisely this situation: the opponent retains Luke but misreads it, hence the repeated insistence that Christ confirms Moses.
Appeals to prophetic continuity and the unity of the divine economy echo Irenaeus’ central anti-Marcion polemic (AH III.12; IV.9), where heresy is characterized as innovation against apostolic tradition. The identification of John as transitional boundary between law and gospel corresponds to Irenaeus’ historical schema dividing economies without positing separate deities (AH III.10; IV.34).
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding
Several features suggest earlier exegetical strata:
The text advances through dominical sayings in sequence with minimal rhetorical digression, characteristic of commentary rather than apologetic invective. The repeated “revincendus es quae recepisti” logic — arguing from texts already accepted by the opponent — matches Irenaeus’ declared program almost verbatim.
The interpretation of Abraham’s bosom as an intermediate state reflects developed theological exposition rather than ad hoc argumentation, consistent with Irenaeus’ layered cosmology (AH V.31). The harmonization of divorce teaching using both Mosaic law and Matthean exception clauses suggests reliance on harmony-style traditions, compatible with an earlier logia-based exegetical framework.
Condensed conclusion
Adv. Marc. IV.34 exhibits strong methodological and structural alignment with the anti-Marcionite strategy described by Irenaeus: refutation using Marcion’s retained Gospel, harmonization of law and gospel, sequential dominical-logia exegesis, and prophetic continuity. The density of parallels in argument form and exegetical technique supports the hypothesis that the chapter preserves or reworks material originating in an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework rather than representing purely independent Tertullianic development.
