| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian |
|---|---|
| …secundum Lucam autem Evangelium, et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes, haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt… “But curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they say that these alone are legitimate which they themselves have reduced.” | …ex ore eius confessionem extorquere cupiebant… nec confesso tamen credituri, qui eum ex operibus scripturas adimplentibus agnovisse debuerant… (IV.41.3) “…they were seeking to extort a confession from his mouth… yet even if he confessed they would not believe, though they ought to have recognized him from works fulfilling the Scriptures…” |
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “From those things which they still preserve among themselves we will refute them.” | …Abhinc erit filius hominis sedens ad dexteram virtutis dei. Suggerebat enim se ex Danielis prophetia filium hominis, et e psalmo David sedentem ad dexteram dei… (IV.41.4) “…From now on the Son of Man will sit at the right hand of the power of God. For he was suggesting himself as the Son of Man from Daniel’s prophecy and from the psalm of David as sitting at God’s right hand…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.41..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.41.1 | Adam argument: reversal of Marcionite critique of Creator | Symmetrical reversal logic (criticism of Creator rebounds onto Marcion’s god); dialectical reduction typical of Irenaean anti-dualism | Strong indicator of inherited anti-Marcion argumentative template rather than ad hoc rhetorical invention |
| IV.41.2–3 | Interrogation scene: “Why did Christ not reveal another god?” | Argument from narrative silence; epistemic continuity (“which God did they know?”); internal refutation from Luke | Classic AH-style reasoning — collapse dualism by showing Gospel narrative presupposes known Creator; likely drawn from established exegetical tradition |
| IV.41.4–6 | Fulfillment recognition logic (works fulfilling Scripture) | Recognition-through-fulfillment hermeneutic; salvation-history continuity; prophetic framework controlling interpretation | Strong Irenaean fingerprint: Gospel meaning derived from prophetic economy; suggests pre-structured exegetical scheme |
| IV.41.7–9 | Daniel + Psalm testimonia cluster (Son of Man / right hand) | Catena-style prophetic chaining; typological confirmation; testimonia tradition | Highly suggestive of inherited dossier (testimonia chains typical in earlier anti-heretical literature) |
| IV.41.10–12 | Narrative analysis (dialogue parsing, interrogative logic) | Commentary-style grammatical reasoning; contextual rule (“response must match question”) | Less typical of Tertullianic invective; resembles analytical exegetical commentary — possible earlier source framework |
| IV.41 overall | Passion narrative embedded within prophetic continuity | Sequential Lucan exegesis; internal refutation using accepted Gospel; unity-of-economy argument | Strong cumulative evidence of structured anti-Marcion commentary aligned with Irenaeus AH III program |
Tertullian IV.41: “Vae, ait, per quem traditur filius hominis … Abhinc erit filius hominis sedens ad dexteram virtutis dei”; Irenaeus AH III.18.1–3 “non alius est filius hominis nisi qui ex David … sedens ad dexteram Patris”; AH III.11.7 “ex ipsis Scripturis quae ab eis recipiuntur convincuntur”; AH III.12.12 “ex prophetis ostendens eum esse Christum.”
Methodological parallels.
The chapter exemplifies the program Irenaeus announces (“Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos”), namely refutation using texts retained by the opponent. Tertullian argues from Marcion’s own Gospel material: the “Vae” against Judas, the interrogation before the council, and especially the self-identification through Danielic and Psalmic prooftexts (“filius hominis sedens ad dexteram”). This corresponds closely to Irenaeus’s recurring technique of demonstrating orthodoxy through passages heretics themselves accept (AH III.11.7; III.12.12), rather than introducing external authorities. Both authors treat prophetic fulfillment as internal evidence embedded within the transmitted Gospel tradition. The appeal to Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 as interpretive keys reflects Irenaeus’s practice of linking Gospel sayings with prophetic typology to show continuity between creator and Christ (cf. AH IV.6–7; IV.33).
Structural correspondences.
The argument sequence mirrors a recognizably Irenaean structure: first theological premise (divine judgment implied by “Vae”), then anthropological or doctrinal inference (divine providence and foreknowledge), followed by scriptural identification of Christ through prophecy, culminating in Christological clarification (“tu dei filius es”). The movement from divine character → prophetic expectation → Gospel event resembles Irenaeus’s macro-pattern in Books III–IV, where narrative episodes serve as occasions for demonstrating the unity of revelation and for identifying Christ with the creator’s plan. The passage is not merely rhetorical; it unfolds as sequential exegetical commentary tied to individual dominical sayings.
Historical polemic parallels.
Both Tertullian and Irenaeus frame Marcion as a later innovator misreading inherited texts. Tertullian’s insistence that the Jews question Jesus about “their” Christ parallels Irenaeus’s recurring claim that heretics distort apostolic tradition by separating Christ from the creator (AH III.12; IV.33). The implicit ecclesial recensio appears in the assumption that scriptural recognition should arise from prophetic continuity already known within the Church. The argument presupposes a stable inherited reading tradition against which Marcion’s interpretation appears secondary and artificial.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
The chapter proceeds pericope-by-pericope rather than by thematic invective, suggesting reliance on an earlier commentary framework. Individual logia (“Vae…”, interrogation formula, Danielic enthronement) are treated as interpretive units with attached prophetic glosses, consistent with a dominical-logia or harmony-based scholion tradition. The integration of prophetic citations as explanatory glosses resembles the compositional style of Irenaeus Book IV, where sayings are interpreted through layered scriptural correspondences rather than independent rhetorical invention. The analytic progression—prophecy → Gospel wording → doctrinal inference—reads like inherited exegetical notes adapted into polemic.
Condensed assessment.
Chapter IV.41 strongly supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: the method of refutation from accepted texts, the prophetic-Gospel linkage, and the sequential exegetical structure align closely with Irenaeus’s announced plan to argue against Marcion using the very Scriptures he preserves, suggesting transmission or adaptation of a pre-Tertullianic exegetical dossier.
