| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (IV.4) |
|---|---|
| …Unde et Marcion, et qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas conversi sunt Scripturas… “Wherefore Marcion and those who are from him have turned to cutting apart the Scriptures…” | Ego Marcionis affirmo adulteratum… “I maintain that Marcion’s [text] is adulterated…” |
| …secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… “…curtailing the Gospel according to Luke…” | …id evangelium quod Lucae refertur… quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum… “…that Gospel which is attributed to Luke… which Marcion in his Antitheses argues to be interpolated…” |
| …haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt… “…they say that these alone are legitimate which they themselves have reduced…” | …emendator sane evangelii… haeresis… quae sic semper emendat evangelia dum vitiat… “…indeed a corrector of the gospel… heresy… which always ‘corrects’ the gospels while corrupting them…” |
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “…from those things still preserved among them we will refute them…” | …Si enim id evangelium… ipsum est quod Marcion… arguit… utique non potuisset arguere nisi quod invenerat… “…For if that Gospel… is the very one which Marcion argues against… he could not have attacked it unless he had found it already existing…” |
| …quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes… “…not recognizing some [Scriptures] at all…” | …nisi quod humanae temeritatis… negotium est haeresis… “…for heresy is a matter of human rashness…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.4.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.4.1 | Establishes antiquity as decisive criterion (“temporis ratio”) for determining authentic Gospel | Priority-of-antiquity rule; apostolic transmission as validation; corruption presupposes earlier original | HIGH — clear Irenaean methodological principle; portable polemical maxim suggests inherited framework |
| IV.4.2 | Principle that falsification implies prior authentic text (“falsum corruptio est veri”) | Anti-heretical axiom used to ground textual priority | HIGH — reads as prefabricated apologetic premise rather than locally derived argument |
| IV.4.3–4 | Restricts dispute to shared Gospel (Luke) and adjudicates authenticity within common textual field | “Refute from retained text” strategy; Marcion mutilates canonical Luke; structured internal adjudication | HIGH — strong architectural alignment with Irenaean anti-Marcion program |
| IV.4.4 | Use of Marcion’s Antitheses as evidence for prior catholic Gospel circulation | Forensic use of heretic’s own writings against him; indirect historical testimony | HIGH — classic inherited anti-heretical reasoning pattern |
| IV.4.5 | Reductio: absurdity that Christ waited centuries for Marcion to correct Gospel | Standardized anti-heretical reductio trope | MEDIUM-HIGH — rhetorical elaboration likely Tertullianic but based on inherited polemical motif |
| IV.4.6 | Appeal to Pauline consensus (“sive ego… sive illi”) as regulatory apostolic rule | Apostolic unanimity overriding isolated interpretation; Paul subordinated to wider apostolic corpus | HIGH — canonical consensus logic closely paralleling Irenaean strategy |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.4: “Quis inter nos determinabit, nisi temporis ratio … auctoritatem quod antiquius reperietur … falsum corruptio est veri … praecedat necesse est veritas falsum … haeresis … sic semper emendat evangelia dum vitiat” // Irenaeus, AH III.3: “traditionem apostolorum manifestatam in toto mundo … per successiones episcoporum”; cf. AH III (programmatic statement): “secundum Lucam Evangelium et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes … ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos … in altera conscriptione.”
Methodological parallels. The argument proceeds by internal adjudication grounded in priority and transmission, matching the Irenaean method of evaluating doctrinal claims through apostolic antiquity. Tertullian proposes a criterion based on temporal priority (“temporis ratio”), asserting that authenticity belongs to what is earlier and corruption to what is later. This aligns with Irenaeus’s methodological appeal to the continuous apostolic tradition as the standard by which heretical modifications—particularly Marcion’s editing of Luke and Paul—are exposed. The polemic against Marcion’s “emendation” of the Gospel parallels Irenaeus’s depiction of heretics as mutilators who attempt to correct authentic texts but thereby reveal their dependence on them.
Structural correspondences. The chapter maintains the established sequence: doctrinal presupposition (truth precedes falsification), followed by historical-canonical argument (priority of the catholic Gospel tradition), culminating in evaluation of the Lukan Gospel within this framework. The argument transitions from general principles of authenticity to specific discussion of Luke, preparing the ground for further sequential Gospel examination. This reflects the structural pattern in Adversus Haereses III, where the legitimacy of canonical texts is established prior to exegetical engagement with specific passages.
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is framed explicitly as posterior to the catholic tradition, and therefore derivative and corruptive. The appeal to chronology, succession, and the historical development of Christian literature echoes Irenaeus’s emphasis on apostolic continuity and the novelty of heresy. The rhetorical claim that heresy “always edits the Gospel while corrupting it” corresponds closely to Irenaeus’s depiction of Marcionite practice as cutting and reshaping inherited texts. The invocation of Paul’s authority (“sive ego sive illi”) reinforces the same historical criterion used by Irenaeus: unity of apostolic proclamation despite later distortions.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding. The structured reasoning from temporal priority → apostolic authority → textual authenticity suggests reliance on a developed anti-heretical framework rather than purely ad hoc polemic. The discussion of Luke as a shared text between catholic and Marcionite communities mirrors the anticipated strategy of refutation from retained materials described in AH III. The argument functions as a methodological preface preparing for detailed pericope analysis, consistent with a pre-existing exegetical scheme focused on demonstrating continuity within the Gospel tradition.
Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework by grounding authenticity in apostolic antiquity, framing Marcion as a derivative editor of inherited texts, and employing internal refutation through Luke, thereby closely aligning with the strategy envisioned in the lost “altera conscriptio.”
