| Passage Unit (IV.37…) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.37.1–3 (Zacchaeus narrative) | Lucan pericope used as test case: repentance → salvation → continuity with prophetic ethics | Sequential pericope commentary; prophetic alignment (Isaiah 58); salvation-history fulfillment logic | Strong signal of inherited exegetical framework moving stepwise through Luke |
| IV.37.3–5 (“salvation has come to this house”) | Christ validates prophetic commandments as salvific; Gospel confirms Creator’s moral program | Recognition hermeneutic (“Christ confirms prophet”); identity-through-continuity reasoning typical of Irenaeus | Suggests pre-structured anti-Marcion argument emphasizing unity of divine economy |
| IV.37.6–9 (“Son of Man came to save what was lost”) | Anthropological argument against docetism; salvation applies to whole human | Enumerative logical method (body / soul / whole man); doctrinal deduction from narrative phrase | Strongly Irenaean-style syllogistic theology embedded into exegesis; looks like inherited doctrinal schema |
| IV.37.9–12 (Anthropology excursus) | Refutes Marcionite dual anthropology; asserts fleshly salvation | Recapitulation logic; anti-docetic framework tied to Gospel phrase rather than external authority | Structural insertion suggests earlier theological dossier integrated into commentary |
| IV.37.13–18 (Parables / servants / judgment) | Narrative implies judging God → therefore Creator identity | Internal refutation from accepted text; narrative-role identity argument (judge = Creator) | Classic Irenaean anti-dualism mechanism; likely derivative structure rather than spontaneous polemic |
| IV.37.18–end (recognition of prophetic continuity) | Christ recognizable through prophetic patterns; salvation history unified | Recognition-based hermeneutic; salvation-history continuity model | Aligns closely with AH III methodology; supports hypothesis of earlier anti-Marcion exegetical tradition |
Tertullian: “Consequitur et Zachaei domus salutem… Miserere mei, Iesu fili David… omnis populus laudes referebat deo, non Marcionis, sed David… Confringito… panem tuum esurienti… Hodie salus huic domui… Venit enim filius hominis salvum facere quod periit.”
Irenaeus: “Marcion… Evangelium secundum Lucam decurtans…” (AH III.12.12; III.14); “unum et eundem Deum… qui per prophetas praedixit et per Filium implevit” (AH III.6–10; IV.9); “salvare quod perierat” salvation-history logic (AH III.18–19; V.14); prophetic ethics via Isaiah (AH IV.9.2; IV.14.1).
Methodological Parallels
The structure corresponds closely to the program Irenaeus announces: refutation drawn from material Marcion still preserves. Tertullian’s use of the Zacchaeus pericope functions as an internal critique of the Marcionite Gospel. Instead of appealing to external authorities, he derives theological conclusions from the narrative itself: Zacchaeus acts in accordance with prophetic commands (Isaiah 58:7), therefore the narrative presupposes continuity with the creator’s prophetic economy. This mirrors Irenaeus’s recurring method: using the opponent’s retained texts to demonstrate doctrinal inconsistency (AH III.12–14; III.15).
Irenaeus frequently interprets Gospel episodes as implicit confirmations of prophetic ethics; for example, he aligns Christ’s teaching with Isaiah’s moral imperatives to demonstrate unity between covenantal revelation and Gospel fulfillment (AH IV.9; IV.14). Tertullian’s move—reading Zacchaeus’s generosity as fulfillment of Isaiah’s injunction—is thus methodologically Irenaean rather than uniquely Tertullianic.
The internal logical test resembles AH’s standard technique: if a Gospel episode presupposes prophetic knowledge or Davidic identity (“Iesu fili David”), then the Christ cannot originate from an alien deity. Irenaeus repeatedly insists that recognition of Jesus as Davidic Messiah functions as proof of continuity with the creator’s historical economy (AH III.9; III.11).
Structural Correspondences
The argument unfolds according to a sequence strongly attested in Irenaeus:
-
Messianic identification tied to Israel’s history (blind man’s cry “fili David”) → parallels AH III.9–11 where Davidic lineage anchors Christ in the creator’s plan.
-
Prophetic ethical fulfillment (Isaiah citation) → analogous to Irenaeus’s cumulative prophetic proof chains demonstrating moral continuity (AH IV.9.2; IV.14).
-
Soteriological conclusion (“hodie salus huic domui”) → similar to AH III.18–19, where salvation sayings confirm the creator’s salvific intent.
-
Anthropological expansion (salvation of body and soul) → classic Irenaean anti-gnostic anthropology arguing for total human salvation including flesh (AH V.1–14).
This layered sequence is characteristic of Irenaeus’s salvation-historical exposition: prophecy → Christic fulfillment → doctrinal conclusion. Tertullian’s rhetorical texture overlays what appears to be an earlier exegetical scaffolding.
Historical Polemic Parallels
Tertullian presents Marcion as posterior innovator whose claims collapse when tested against the narrative itself. This aligns with Irenaeus’s constant historical framing: Marcion mutilates Luke and Paul yet cannot escape the witness embedded in those texts (AH III.12.12; III.14.1). The insistence that praise was given to “Deus David, non Marcionis” echoes Irenaeus’s recurring assertion that apostolic tradition publicly identifies Christ with the creator God (AH III.3; III.10).
The anthropological argument in §3—if the whole human being was lost, the whole must be saved—closely parallels Irenaeus’s anti-gnostic defense of the salvation of the flesh (AH V.6; V.14), suggesting reliance on a shared anti-heretical template rather than independent invention.
Signs of Inherited Exegetical Scaffolding
Several features suggest pre-existing material:
Stepwise pericope exposition rather than free rhetorical flow.
Dominical-logia style reasoning: narrative episode interpreted as doctrinal proof unit.
Stacked prophetic validation (Isaiah 58 ethics) integrated into Gospel narrative—typical of Irenaeus’s cumulative proof method.
Transition from narrative exegesis to systematic anthropology mirrors AH’s pattern of expanding Gospel commentary into doctrinal argument (especially in Books III–V).
The alternation between schematic theological exposition and sharp polemical asides implies editorial reshaping rather than original composition ex nihilo.
Condensed Assessment
Adv. Marc. IV.37 strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework. The internal refutation method, prophetic-fulfillment structure, Davidic Christology, and holistic anthropology align closely with recurring argumentative patterns in Adversus Haereses, suggesting that Tertullian is reworking inherited exegetical material consistent with the anti-Marcionite treatise Irenaeus announces in AH III.
