|
|---|
| Passage Unit (IV.40) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.40.1–2 | Passover selection interpreted as proof Christ acts within Mosaic economy | Fulfillment-of-type logic (Pascha → Passion); salvation-history continuity typical of Irenaean economy framework | Strong signal of inherited anti-Marcion typological schema rather than ad hoc invention |
| IV.40.3 | Anti-Marcion irony (“law-destroyer who keeps Passover”) exposing contradiction | Standard anti-dualist trope: Christ’s obedience to Law proves Creator continuity | Likely reuse of established anti-Marcion polemical formula |
| IV.40.4–6 | Betrayal narrative aligned with prophetic testimonia (Ps 41:9 etc.) | Dense catena-style prophetic chaining; convergence method characteristic of Irenaean exegesis | Indicates pre-assembled testimonia dossier or inherited exegetical chain |
| IV.40.7–9 | Eucharistic institution used as anti-docetic proof (bread/body realism) | Sacramental realism: “figure requires reality” logic mirrors Irenaean anti-docetic argument pattern | Very strong indicator of shared or inherited doctrinal template |
| IV.40.10 | Rhetorical elaboration (bread vs other foods) reinforcing typological necessity | Humor layered over prior typological framework; underlying argument precedes rhetoric | Suggests Tertullian adapting earlier argument with stylistic overlay |
| IV.40.11–12 | Jeremiah “wood into his bread” interpreted christologically | Rare prophetic typology used as Passion fulfillment; testimonia-style exegesis | Likely drawn from earlier anti-heretical interpretive tradition |
| IV.40.13–15 | Wine/blood typology using Isaiah 63 + Genesis 49 | Multi-prophet synthesis demonstrating single divine economy (Law–Prophets–Gospel unity) | Strong Irenaean structural parallel; evidence of systematic exegetical framework |
| IV.40.16–end | Sequential Passion fulfillment grid (Passover → betrayal → Eucharist → prophetic blood imagery) | Pericope-by-pericope Luke commentary with cumulative typological argument | Supports hypothesis of underlying anti-Marcion commentary source |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.40 — “Pascha est domini … concupiscentia concupivi pascha edere vobiscum … Hoc est corpus meum” || Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.12.12 / III.16.6 (par.): “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguere … non dissolvere legem sed adimplere … unum eundemque Deum legis et evangelii”
Methodological parallels.
The chapter exhibits the precise methodological program announced by Irenaeus when he promises to refute Marcion “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur,” namely by appealing to elements preserved even within the Marcionite gospel tradition. Tertullian does exactly this by reading the Passion narrative and Eucharistic institution as internal proof against Marcion’s dualism. The argument proceeds not by external authority but by internal exegesis: Christ chooses Passover (“ex tot festis Iudaeorum paschae diem elegit”) and explicitly desires it (“concupiscentia concupivi”), thereby demonstrating continuity with Mosaic cult. This mirrors Irenaeus’ repeated method in Book III, where scriptural passages acknowledged by heretics are reinterpreted to demonstrate unity of Creator and Christ. The appeal to prophetic fulfilment (Isaiah 53, Jeremiah 11, Genesis 49) corresponds closely to Irenaeus’ technique of using prophecy to anchor gospel events in the Creator’s prior economy (cf. AH III.9–12; IV.9–10). The Eucharistic interpretation—bread as figure grounded in real body—echoes Irenaeus’ anti-docetic strategy (AH IV.18.5; V.2.2), where sacramental realism proves incarnation.
Structural correspondences.
The argumentative structure follows a pattern strongly reminiscent of Irenaeus’ anti-Marcionite scaffolding. First, cultic continuity: Passover situates Christ within Jewish salvation history. Second, Christology: prophetic typology demonstrates that Jesus fulfills pre-announced suffering. Third, sequential exegetical analysis of gospel events: betrayal, price of silver, Eucharistic words, and prophetic symbolism of wine/blood are treated in consecutive order, suggesting commentary on a continuous narrative source rather than free rhetorical polemic. Fourth, theological conclusion: affirmation of real flesh and blood counters docetic or Marcionite interpretations. This progression mirrors the Irenaean movement from prophetic foundation → incarnation → sacramental realism found especially in AH IV–V.
Historical polemic parallels.
Tertullian’s polemic presumes the same historical framing as Irenaeus: Marcion is a later innovator who truncates inherited scripture (“secundum Lucam … decurtantes,” as described by Irenaeus). The insistence that Christ fulfills prophecies already present implies that Marcion’s version must be derivative and mutilated. Appeals to prophetic authority, Mosaic ritual, and genealogical expectations function like Irenaeus’ appeals to apostolic continuity and ecclesial tradition (AH III.3–4), reinforcing the claim that orthodox interpretation preserves the original deposit.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
Several features suggest dependence on earlier commentary layers rather than purely Tertullianic invention. The pericope-by-pericope treatment resembles dominical-logia scholia: Passover selection, betrayal prophecy, thirty silver pieces, Eucharistic institution, and prophetic typology of wine are handled as discrete exegetical units integrated into a running gospel commentary. The interpretive logic—prophecy → fulfillment → doctrinal conclusion—is characteristic of Irenaeus’ exegetical rhythm. Additionally, the sacramental realism argument (figure requires reality; bread signifies true body) parallels Irenaeus’ anti-docetic Eucharistic reasoning so closely that it reads like transmission of an earlier anti-heretical tradition rather than independent construction.
Condensed assessment.
Adv. Marc. IV.40 strongly supports the hypothesis of dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the method of refutation from Marcion’s retained text, the sequential exegetical structure, the prophetic-fulfilment logic, and the sacramental realism argument align closely with techniques and theological emphases characteristic of Irenaeus’ announced but otherwise lost anti-Marcionite project.
