| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian |
|---|---|
| …haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt… Nos autem etiam ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “They say that these alone are legitimate, which they themselves have reduced… but we will refute them even from those things still preserved among them.” | Venient denique illi dicentes, Ego sum Christus… Recipies eos, qui consimilem recepisti… (IV.39.1–2) “Indeed those will come saying, ‘I am the Christ’… Will you receive them, since you received one similar?” |
| …arguemus eos… “…we will refute them…” | Ipsius decursum scripturae evangelicae… ita invenies contextu sensus… (IV.39.13) “You will find that the very course of the Gospel text itself, by the continuity of its meaning…” |
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur… “…from those things still preserved among them…” | Adeo legem et prophetas non destruebat, cum quae praedicaverant confirmat perfici oportere. (IV.39.17) “Thus he did not destroy the Law and the Prophets, since he confirms that what they proclaimed must be fulfilled.” |
| Passage Unit (IV.39) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.39.1–2 | Establishes rule of “name ownership” (nomina/proprietas) to argue Christ’s identity belongs to Creator’s prophetic economy | Priority logic (“already established”) resembles Irenaean appeal to inherited doctrinal rule rather than new invention | Strong signal of dependence on earlier anti-Marcion argumentative tradition or dossier |
| IV.39.3 | Catalogue of eschatological signs (wars, famine, earthquakes) interpreted as fulfillment of Creator’s prophetic plan | Salvation-history dispositio; necessity formula (“must happen”) typical of Irenaean recapitulation logic | Suggests structured prophetic catena inherited rather than spontaneous rhetorical development |
| IV.39.4–5 | Martyrdom prophecy interpreted via Zechariah imagery (stones, altar, blood) | Technical “species” classification linking prophecy → Christian martyrdom; exegetical precision | Looks like pre-assembled testimonia chain; probable reuse of earlier anti-heretical exegetical material |
| IV.39.6–7 | Clustered prooftexts (Balaam, Moses, Isaiah) explaining inspired speech and defense before authorities | Catena-style grouping; prophetic continuity schema characteristic of Irenaeus | Strong indicator of inherited exegetical compilation or commentary tradition |
| IV.39.8–12 | Refutation of Marcionite division of eschatological discourse between two gods | Unity-of-economy logic; judgment + salvation unified in single subject | Classic Irenaean anti-dualist syllogism; suggests doctrinal template rather than ad hoc polemic |
| IV.39.13–15 | Argument from contextual continuity (“decursus”) — discourse cannot be split between two deities | Narrative coherence principle used as hermeneutical rule | Clear sign of commentary structure moving through Luke sequentially |
| IV.39.16–17 | Fig-tree parable interpreted via sign–thing–owner logic | Ownership metaphysics (sign belongs to owner) parallels earlier “lost sheep” reasoning patterns | Repetition of earlier logical template suggests structured dossier-style composition |
| IV.39.18–19 | Micro-harmonization of narrative details with prophetic texts (Hosea, Zechariah, Isaiah) | Dense prophetic harmonization grid typical of Irenaean fulfillment method | High likelihood of dependence on pre-existing anti-Marcion exegetical framework |
“Venient denique illi dicentes, Ego sum Christus… ipse veniet nominum dominus… filius hominis veniens de caelis…” (Tert., Adv. Marc. IV.39) — cf. “secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos” (Iren., AH III); also AH IV passim on prophetic–evangelical concordia and the ‘filius hominis’ of Daniel.
Methodological parallels.
The chapter exhibits the precise methodological program announced by Irenaeus in AH III: refutation from the opponent’s retained Gospel material rather than external authority. Tertullian repeatedly grounds arguments in sayings Marcion presumably retained (“Venient… Ego sum Christus,” eschatological discourse, Sadducean question material), treating them as internal evidence against Marcionite dualism. This corresponds directly to Irenaeus’s strategy of arguing “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur,” especially his repeated demonstrations that Gospel statements themselves presuppose the Creator’s prophetic economy. The reliance on prophetic corroboration (Daniel, Joel, Habakkuk, Zechariah) mirrors Irenaeus’s habitual method in AH IV–V: Christological sayings are validated through prophetic prefiguration rather than independent theological speculation. The interpretive logic is syllogistic in the Irenaean manner: if prophetic events and dominical sayings coincide, they must originate from one divine economy.
Structural correspondences.
The argumentative flow follows a recognizably Irenaean sequence. First comes the premise of name-propriety (Christus/Iesus belonging to the Creator), parallel to Irenaeus’s insistence on apostolic naming and scriptural identity markers. Second, eschatological discourse is interpreted sequentially: wars, cosmic signs, persecution, prophetic fulfillment, and the coming of the Son of Man. This chaining of Gospel pericopes through prophetic citations reflects the structural pattern of AH IV, where prophetic texts are aligned with Gospel episodes to demonstrate continuity. Third, a synthetic conclusion unifies “concussiones” and “promissiones” under one advent of the Son of Man; this resembles Irenaeus’s habit of reconciling apparently divergent scriptural themes under a single divine dispensation. The closing movement toward fulfillment (“non destruebat… sed adimplere”) echoes the Irenaean hermeneutic of recapitulation, whereby Christ consummates prior revelation rather than abolishing it.
Historical polemic parallels.
Marcion is again portrayed as a posterior innovator whose theology fails when confronted with inherited scriptural categories. Tertullian argues that prophetic predictions and dominical sayings are inseparable; therefore any attempt to divide Creator and Christ collapses. This corresponds closely to Irenaeus’s repeated polemic that heretics introduce novelty contrary to apostolic tradition and prophetic witness (AH III–IV). The emphasis on mutilation of Scripture and ownership of names resonates with Irenaeus’s charge that Marcion “decurtantes” Luke and Paul distort apostolic testimony. The repeated appeal to prophetic anticipation (e.g., Danielic Son of Man) parallels Irenaeus’s use of eschatological prophecy as a continuity argument against dualist reinterpretations.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
Several features suggest a pre-existing anti-Marcionite exegetical layer rather than purely Tertullianic rhetorical composition. The dominical-logia sequence proceeds pericope by pericope, each linked with prophetic proof-texts, forming a scholion-like chain consistent with catechetical exegesis. Logical dichotomies (“concussiones… promissiones,” one advent uniting both) resemble schematic anti-heretical argumentation typical of Irenaeus. The sustained integration of Danielic and prophetic imagery with Gospel discourse indicates a harmony-compatible framework: the sayings are treated as part of a unified dominical tradition rather than exclusively Lukan material, aligning with the type of lost anti-Marcionite commentary implied by Irenaeus. The limited rhetorical digression and emphasis on sequential scriptural exposition further reinforce the impression of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
Condensed assessment.
Chapter IV.39 strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: its internal critique from Marcion’s retained Gospel, systematic chaining of prophecy and dominical sayings, unified eschatological synthesis, and polemic against novelty closely reproduce methodological, structural, and argumentative patterns characteristic of Irenaeus’s announced but otherwise lost Adversus Marcionem.
