|
|---|
| Passage Unit (IV.5.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.5.1 | Establishes rule of antiquity: priority → origin → apostolicity → authenticity | Antiquity as criterion of truth; apostolic succession logic; prefabricated anti-heretical axiom | HIGH — methodological spine strongly aligned with Irenaean framework; reads as inherited principle rather than local argument |
| IV.5.2–3 | Appeal to apostolic churches (Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Rome) as custodians of authentic Gospel | Ecclesial reception as validation; geographic chain of custody; succession-based authority | HIGH — direct structural parallel to Irenaean succession argument; institutional continuity used instead of textual analysis |
| IV.5.4 | Episcopal succession (Johannine lineage) as proof of textual integrity | Episcopate genealogy guaranteeing doctrinal continuity | HIGH — classic succession logic; suggests reliance on pre-existing anti-heretical dossier |
| IV.5.5 | Expansion from Luke to fourfold Gospel under apostolic authority | Harmonizing quadriform canon grounded in apostolic churches | HIGH — strong Irenaean resonance; four-gospel framework presupposed rather than argued |
| IV.5.6 | Forensic argument from Marcion’s selective editing | Exposure of inconsistency within heretical editorial practice | MEDIUM-HIGH — inherited polemical trope applied with juridical framing |
| IV.5.7 | Hierarchical authority: apostles → disciples → churches; truth precedes falsification | Chronological reconstruction of corruption; apostolic rule of faith | HIGH — anti-heretical axiom (“truth precedes falsification”) matches established Irenaean method |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.5: “si constat id verius quod prius … id ab initio quod ab apostolis … quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum … auctoritatem ecclesiarum traditioni apostolorum patrocinantem … veritas falsum praecedat necesse est” // Irenaeus, AH III.3.1–3: “traditionem apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam … per successiones episcoporum … cum hac enim ecclesia propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam”; cf. AH III (programmatic statement): “secundum Lucam Evangelium et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes … ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos”; AH III.11.8 (fourfold Gospel established in the churches).
Methodological parallels. The chapter employs the Irenaean criterion of apostolic antiquity and ecclesial transmission as decisive proof. Tertullian’s formula—truth is earlier, earlier is apostolic, apostolic is preserved in the churches—reproduces the methodological core of AH III.3, where authenticity is established through publicly traceable succession and ecclesial continuity. The appeal to multiple Pauline churches (Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Romans) mirrors Irenaeus’s survey of apostolic communities as witnesses to unbroken transmission. The argument proceeds by internal critique: Marcion’s Gospel is tested against the form of Luke preserved across apostolic churches, consistent with the Irenaean strategy of refuting heretics from the materials they retain.
Structural correspondences. The argument follows the same sequence found in Irenaeus: principle of antiquity → appeal to apostolic churches → canonical stabilization of the Gospel corpus → critique of heretical innovation. Tertullian moves from a general epistemic rule (“id verius quod prius”) to historical verification through ecclesial succession, then to canonical classification (John, Matthew, Mark, Luke) paralleling AH III.11’s establishment of the fourfold Gospel grounded in apostolic authority. The structural logic prepares for detailed Gospel exegesis by first securing the historical legitimacy of the textual tradition.
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is framed as a later founder of “posteras … adulteras” churches, echoing Irenaeus’s insistence that heretical groups lack antiquity and therefore authority. The contrast between apostolic churches and derivative sectarian communities reflects Irenaeus’s recurring argument that chronological priority and continuous succession validate orthodoxy. Tertullian’s statement that heresy edits while corrupting the Gospel parallels Irenaeus’s description of Marcion as mutilating Luke and Paul. The appeal to episcopal succession in Johannine communities corresponds closely to Irenaeus’s use of succession lists to authenticate doctrinal continuity.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding. The tightly structured chain—antiquity, apostolic origin, ecclesial transmission, canonical authority—suggests dependence on an established anti-Marcionite framework rather than spontaneous rhetorical construction. The integration of multiple apostolic witnesses and churches resembles Irenaeus’s systematic deployment of ecclesial geography as proof. The canonical classification of the four evangelists and the emphasis on shared transmission across churches align with a pre-existing schema organizing Gospel authority prior to pericope-level analysis.
Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly reinforces dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework through its explicit reliance on apostolic antiquity, episcopal succession, and the authority of apostolic churches as methodological criteria, closely mirroring the argumentative techniques and terminology of Adversus Haereses III and corresponding to the strategy envisioned in the lost “altera conscriptio.”
