“Sed Christus divortium prohibet…; Sed subiunxit facturum deum vindictam electorum suorum… habent illic Moysen et prophetas, audiant illos” (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.36) — “Sed Marcion, mutilans evangelium quod est secundum Lucam… ex ipsis quae adhuc retinent arguendus est” (Irenaeus, AH III; cf. III.11.7–9; IV.1.1; IV.12–13).
Methodological parallels
The governing procedure in this chapter corresponds closely to the methodological declaration attributed to Irenaeus’ projected anti-Marcionite treatise: refutation “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur.” Tertullian’s strategy repeatedly presupposes Marcion’s retention of dominical sayings (prayer parables, rich ruler narrative, blind man calling Jesus “fili David”), and argues from those very passages against Marcionite theology. This mirrors Irenaeus’ explicit claim that Marcion is refuted from the material he still accepts (“ex ipsis quae adhuc retinent arguendus est”), where the adversary’s own Gospel provides the evidentiary base. The argumentative technique—internal critique rather than external canon imposition—matches AH III.11, where Marcion is said to mutilate Luke yet be convicted by what remains. Tertullian’s insistence that Christ’s teaching on prayer, humility, judgment, and commandments presupposes the creator God reproduces Irenaeus’ frequent method of demonstrating doctrinal continuity through retained textual fragments.
Structural correspondences
The argument proceeds according to a recognizable Irenaean sequence. First comes the identification of God as judge and vindicator (parable of the widow and judge), paralleling AH IV’s insistence that the same creator is judge and savior. This is followed by ethical teaching (humility vs. pride; temple worship), then by doctrinal clarification (“quis optimus nisi unus deus?”), and finally by sequential Gospel exegesis moving through recognizable pericopes: the rich ruler, the fulfillment of law, Davidic sonship. Such structured movement—from divine identity to ethical instruction to pericope-by-pericope interpretation—recalls Irenaeus’ compositional pattern in AH III–IV, where theological principles are demonstrated by cumulative exegesis of dominical logia. The progression suggests a pre-existing exegetical outline rather than purely improvisational polemic.
Historical polemic parallels
The historical positioning of Marcion aligns strongly with Irenaeus’ polemical framing. Tertullian treats Marcion as a later innovator whose errors arise from misunderstanding Scripture rather than possessing an alternative revelation; this echoes AH III’s claim that heretics distort texts received from the Church. Appeals to genealogical legitimacy (Jesus as “fili David”), temple continuity, and Mosaic law as Christ’s foundation reproduce characteristic Irenaean themes: apostolic succession, unity of Scripture, and historical continuity between Israel and the Church. The insistence that Marcion’s Christ cannot deny the creator without contradicting retained Gospel passages reflects Irenaeus’ repeated argument that heretics unwittingly testify against themselves through their scriptural usage.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding
Several features indicate the presence of a prior exegetical framework. The chapter reads as a chain of scholia attached to successive Lukan episodes: perseverance in prayer, humility in worship, the rich man’s obedience to commandments, Davidic identification, healing of the blind. Each unit is treated with a consistent hermeneutic—showing Christ fulfilling rather than abolishing the law—suggesting an inherited dominical-logia commentary structure adaptable to anti-Marcionite purposes. The pattern resembles harmony-compatible marginal commentary rather than the more discursive rhetorical style typical of Tertullian elsewhere. Moreover, repeated alignment of Gospel sayings with prophetic or legal texts (Micah, Deuteronomy, Psalms) reflects the Irenaean practice of demonstrating unity through typological correspondences.
Condensed assessment
Adv. Marc. IV.36 strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the methodological reliance on refutation from retained texts, the structured sequence of theological premises followed by ordered pericope exegesis, and the recurring historical and scriptural arguments parallel central techniques and themes found throughout Irenaeus’ corpus and his announced plan to argue against Marcion from Luke itself.
