| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (IV.42) |
|---|---|
| …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.” | …Vestitum plane eius a militibus divisum, partim sorte concessum, Marcion abstulit… (IV.42.4) “…His garment indeed divided by the soldiers, partly assigned by lot — Marcion removed [this]…” |
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “From those things which they still preserve among themselves we will refute them.” | …Totus in illo exitus legitur… Circumdederunt me canes… Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos… (IV.42.4) “…The whole outcome is read in him… ‘Dogs surrounded me… they pierced my hands and feet…’” |
| …quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes… “…not recognizing some [Scriptures] at all…” | …Aufer igitur et crucem ipsam… Idem enim psalmus de eo non tacet… (IV.42.4) “…Remove then even the cross itself… for the same psalm does not keep silence about him…” |
| Passage Unit (IV..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.42.1–2 | Passion narrative mapped onto prophetic schema (Pilate trial → Psalm 2 framework) | Systematic prophetic chaining; narrative roles mapped to prophetic categories (nations/peoples/kings/rulers) — classic salvation-history recapitulation pattern | Strong indicator of inherited testimonia structure; resembles pre-assembled prophetic dossier rather than ad hoc argument |
| IV.42.2–3 | Typological identification of Passion actors through Psalmic categories | Fixed symbolic mapping (Romans = nations, Israel = peoples, Herod = kings, priests = rulers); structured prophetic grid | Suggests prior exegetical template; resembles Irenaean recapitulation method aligning narrative with prophecy |
| IV.42.3–4 | Editorial anti-Marcion insertions (“Marcion removed…”) within prophetic exposition | Layered text: smooth prophetic sequence interrupted by polemical redaction comments | Indicates composite structure; likely earlier exegetical layer overlaid with Tertullian’s polemic |
| IV.42.4 | Whole-Psalm assimilation (Psalm 22 as Passion script) | Totalizing fulfillment hermeneutic; entire prophetic text read as Passion narrative framework | Strong Irenaean signature; testimonia-style exegesis rather than rhetorical improvisation |
| IV.42.4–5 | Division of garments / crucifixion details tied sequentially to prophecy | Mechanical Gospel → prophecy alignment; linear mapping | Supports hypothesis of inherited commentary tradition working through Luke sequentially |
| IV.42.5 | Cosmic signs (darkness etc.) interpreted through Isaiah/Amos | Fulfillment inevitability: Creator predicted → Christ fulfills → unity of deity | Core Irenaean argumentative logic (one economy across prophecy and Gospel) |
| IV.42.6–7 | Anti-docetic analysis (spirit vs flesh in death) | Sudden shift from prophetic chaining to doctrinal parsing; analytical tone distinct from surrounding material | Possible secondary layer or editorial expansion; different argumentative register suggests compositional layering |
| IV.42 overall | Sequential Passion commentary aligned with prophetic chain | Continuous pericope-by-pericope movement through Luke’s Passion narrative; recognition-through-fulfillment hermeneutic | Strong cumulative signal of structured anti-Marcion dossier; consistent with Irenaean AH III program (“refute from retained texts”) |
Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV.42):
“statuit in iudicio populum suum… Tumultuatae sunt nationes… astiterunt reges terrae… adversus dominum et adversus Christum eius”;
“tanquam agnus coram tondente sic non aperuit os suum”;
“Dispertiti sibi sunt vestimenta mea… foderunt manus meas et pedes meos.”
Irenaeus (AH III–IV parallels):
“ea quae dicta sunt a prophetis in Christo adimpleta sunt” (AH III passim);
“unum et eundem ostendunt Christum quem lex et prophetae praedicaverunt” (AH IV);
“consonantia prophetarum et evangeliorum” (AH III–IV methodological theme);
“Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguimus eos” (AH III programmatic statement).
Methodological parallels
The dominant method is the classic Irenaean internal critique announced in AH III. Tertullian interprets the passion narrative by chaining prophetic citations (Isaiah, Psalms, Hosea) directly onto Gospel events, thereby demonstrating that the Marcionite Gospel itself presupposes the Creator’s prophetic economy. The logic is identical to Irenaeus’s repeated strategy: the opponent’s retained text becomes evidence against their theology. The appeal to fulfillment (“statuit… secundum Esaiam”; Psalm 2 applied to passion events) mirrors Irenaeus’s insistence that heretics unwittingly preserve testimonia that confirm the unity of Creator and Christ.
Tertullian’s exegesis moves from event → prophecy → theological conclusion, precisely matching the Irenaean pattern whereby scriptural fulfilment demonstrates continuity rather than innovation. The use of prophetic chains rather than philosophical argument strongly resembles AH IV’s style of cumulative proof from prophetic anticipation.
Structural correspondences
The argumentative sequence follows an Irenaean schema:
First, judicial identity: Christ in judgment fulfills prophetic scenes (Isaiah, Psalmic royal imagery), establishing monotheistic continuity.
Second, prophetic fulfillment: passion details (silence before accusers, division of garments, crucifixion imagery) are mapped sequentially onto prophetic texts, reflecting the typical Irenaean “testimonia chain.”
Third, theological synthesis: bodily suffering and real death are emphasized to refute docetic tendencies — again paralleling AH III’s insistence that Christ’s passion fulfills prophecy and demonstrates real incarnation.
This structure echoes Irenaeus’s recurring pattern: prophecy → Gospel event → doctrinal conclusion about Creator-Christ unity.
Historical polemic parallels
Marcion appears implicitly as the later corrupter who removes prophetic continuity. Tertullian argues that deleting prophetic passages (e.g., Psalmic references) undermines the narrative itself — precisely the accusation found in AH III (“secundum Lucam Evangelium… decurtantes”). The narrative demonstrates that the Gospel’s structure depends on Israel’s scriptures; therefore Marcion’s theology collapses historically.
The passion is framed not as a new revelation but as the fulfillment of long-standing prophetic expectation, paralleling Irenaeus’s argument that novelty marks heresy while continuity marks apostolic truth.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding
Several features suggest dependence on earlier anti-Marcionite scholia rather than purely Tertullianic rhetoric:
The dominical-logia structure: individual prophetic verses are aligned step-by-step with Gospel episodes.
Minimal rhetorical flourish compared to surrounding sections; instead the text reads like a chain of exegetical notes.
Systematic mapping of each passion detail to prophetic antecedents — a hallmark of early testimonia collections, frequently employed by Irenaeus.
The cumulative prophetic catalogue resembles AH IV’s style more than Tertullian’s usual forensic rhetoric.
These characteristics strongly suggest adaptation of a pre-existing exegetical framework.
Condensed assessment
Chapter IV.42 strongly supports dependence upon an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework. The internal critique from Marcion’s retained Gospel, sequential prophetic chaining, emphasis on fulfillment, and anti-docetic appeal to real bodily suffering closely reproduce Irenaeus’s methodological and structural patterns as announced in AH III, indicating likely transmission of earlier anti-Marcionite exegetical material into Tertullian’s Latin polemic.
