|
|---|
| Passage Unit (IV..) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.43.1–2 | Women at tomb / resurrection announcement used to prove continuity with prophetic expectation and Creator’s economy. | Prophetic chaining (e.g. Hosea/Isaiah style fulfillment logic); resurrection interpreted via prior scriptural pattern rather than independent revelation. Classic Irenaean fulfillment grid: Gospel event → prophecy → identity of God. | Reads like testimonia-style exegetical layer. Prophetic mapping feels pre-structured rather than spontaneous polemic. Suggests inherited anti-Marcion framework. |
| IV.43.3–5 | Emmaus narrative used as internal refutation: disciples expect “redeemer of Israel,” therefore Christ confirms Creator continuity. | Narrative psychology used as theological proof — a typical Irenaean move (characters’ expectations demonstrate continuity of divine economy). Sequential Luke commentary rather than thematic argument. | Strong sign of dossier-like exegesis: pericope interpreted within salvation-history schema; likely based on prior anti-Marcion exegetical tradition. |
| IV.43.6–7 | Bodily resurrection appearances used against docetism (flesh, bones, eating). | Anti-docetic realism integrated into Gospel exegesis; sacramental/embodied logic resembling Irenaean anthropology (whole-man salvation). Tonal shift from prophetic exegesis to doctrinal analysis. | Composite layering likely: prophetic testimonia base + later doctrinal expansion. Structural seam suggests editorial reworking. |
| IV.43.7–end | Marcion’s retained passages used against him; conclusion asserting identity of Christ with Creator. | Explicit execution of AH III-type method: refute using texts Marcion retains; recognition-through-fulfillment logic; cumulative proof ending formula (“same Christ as prophets”). | Strong evidence of structured anti-Marcion commentary tradition underlying text; Tertullian appears to Latinize and rhetorically expand inherited material. |
Tertullian Adv. Marc. IV.43: “Nos autem putabamus ipsum esse redemptorem Israelis … O insensati et tardi corde in non credendo omnibus quae locutus est ad vos … Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego ipse sum … spiritus ossa non habet” │ Irenaeus Adv. Haer. III.11.8; III.16.5; V.7.1: “quae locuti sunt prophetae … ipse est qui passus est et resurrexit … non phantasma sed verus homo … ostendit discipulis manus et latus”; cf. AH III preface program: “Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos…”.
Methodological parallels.
The dominant technique in this chapter is refutation from Marcion’s own retained Gospel narrative, precisely mirroring the programmatic statement in Irenaeus that heretics will be refuted “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur.” Tertullian proceeds through the resurrection narratives (women at the tomb, Emmaus disciples, appearance to the Eleven) as internal proof that the Christ of Luke is identical with the Creator’s Christ. This reflects the standard Irenaean method seen throughout AH III–V: appeal to the same Gospel texts accepted by opponents to demonstrate continuity with prophetic Scripture and apostolic teaching. The emphasis on prophetic fulfilment (“oportebat… quia ita a deo creatore scriptum”) parallels Irenaeus’ repeated insistence that the passion and resurrection occur “secundum Scripturas” (e.g., AH III.16; V.1–7). The polemical strategy of exploiting passages Marcion failed to excise (“Marcion quaedam… eradere noluit”) closely resembles Irenaeus’ observation that Marcion retains certain texts that betray his theology when interpreted correctly.
Structural correspondences.
The argument unfolds in a recognizable Irenaean sequence. First comes prophetic anticipation: Hosea and Isaiah interpreted typologically as predicting the women at the tomb and resurrection. Second comes identity clarification: the Emmaus narrative demonstrates that the disciples already conceived Jesus as “redemptor Israelis,” hence Creator’s Christ, echoing Irenaeus’ repeated claim that apostolic faith presupposes continuity with Israel’s God (AH III.6; III.11). Third comes Christological clarification through scriptural speech: “O insensati et tardi corde” serves as proof that Christ affirms the prophetic corpus, paralleling Irenaeus’ frequent argument that Christ’s rebuke of unbelief confirms prophetic authority. Fourth comes anti-docetic proof from bodily manifestation: Tertullian’s stress on bones, flesh, eating, and inspection of wounds reproduces a core Irenaean anti-docetic pattern (AH V.1; V.7; V.13), where the resurrection appearances demonstrate corporeality and thus continuity with creation. This sequence—prophecy → identity with Israel’s redeemer → scriptural fulfillment → corporeal resurrection—is structurally closer to Irenaeus’ theological ordering than to Tertullian’s usual legalistic rhetoric elsewhere.
Historical polemic parallels.
Both authors depict Marcion as posterior innovator who mutilates texts yet unwittingly preserves evidence against himself. Tertullian’s comment that Marcion left certain passages intact that refute him (“ex his quae eradere potuit nec erasit…”) echoes Irenaeus’ portrayal of heretics who retain fragments of apostolic writings but distort interpretation (AH I.8; III.12). The appeal to apostolic understanding embedded in the Emmaus narrative (“nos autem putabamus…”) aligns with Irenaeus’ recurring use of apostolic consciousness as proof of doctrinal continuity; the disciples’ expectation becomes a witness to authentic tradition against Marcionite novelty. The insistence that prophetic speech proves the Creator’s authorship corresponds to Irenaeus’ polemic that Christ’s passion fulfills the same God’s plan announced beforehand (AH III.18; IV.33).
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding.
The chapter displays features suggesting prior exegetical layering rather than purely Tertullianic construction. The step-by-step progression through resurrection pericopes resembles sequential scholia attached to Gospel episodes. Each narrative element is paired with prophetic proof-texts, producing a harmony-compatible dominical-logia commentary rather than a purely rhetorical attack. The Emmaus passage is treated as an interpretive hinge, much as in Irenaeus’ exegesis where narrative scenes serve as loci for doctrinal affirmation. The repeated formula “oportebat” reflects an inherited exegetical motif linking prophecy and necessity—a pattern strongly attested in Irenaeus’ interpretive style. The anti-docetic argument built from bodily signs (“ossa… manus et pedes… cibum desideravit”) parallels entire argumentative clusters in AH V, suggesting reuse or adaptation of earlier anti-Marcionite or anti-gnostic exegetical notes.
Condensed conclusion.
Adv. Marc. IV.43 strongly supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: its method of refuting Marcion from his own Gospel, its prophetic-fulfilment structure, its apostolic-tradition appeals, and especially its anti-docetic resurrection exegesis align closely with patterns, vocabulary, and argumentative sequences characteristic of Irenaeus’ announced but lost anti-Marcionite conscriptio.
