| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (IV.6) |
|---|---|
| …secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… “…but curtailing the Gospel according to Luke…” | …ipsum… evangelium Marcionis provocantes… probaturi adulteratum… “…challenging the Gospel of Marcion itself… in order to prove it adulterated…” |
| …haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt… “…they say that these alone are legitimate which they themselves have reduced…” | …contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit… conspirantia cum creatore… “…he erased whatever opposed his opinion… those agreeing with the Creator…” |
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “…from those things still preserved among them we will refute them…” | …haec conveniemus, haec amplectemur… si Marcionis praesumptionem percusserint… “…these we will confront, these we will embrace… if they strike down Marcion’s presumption…” |
| …Scripturas… intercidere… “…to cut apart the Scriptures…” | …sententiae suae reservavit… alia erasa… “…he preserved what suited his view… the rest he erased…” |
| …evangelium… epistolas Pauli… “…the Gospel… and the Epistles of Paul…” | …veteris et novi testamenti diversitatem constituat… “…to establish a division between Old and New Testament…” |
| …interpretationes pervertunt… “…they distort the interpretations…” | …quantam inter legem et evangelium… quantam inter Iudaismum et Christianismum… “…as great as between law and gospel… as between Judaism and Christianity…” |
| …ex ipsis Scripturis arguere… “…to argue from the Scriptures themselves…” | …si administraverit dispositiones eius… si impleverit prophetias eius… si adiuverit leges eius… “…if he has administered His dispensations… if he has fulfilled His prophecies… if he has supported His laws…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.6.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.6.1 | Establishes Marcion’s Antitheses as framework separating Old/New Testaments and two Christs | Presupposed “Marcion mutilates Scripture” paradigm; schematic description of editorial method | HIGH — diagnostic framework appears inherited rather than newly demonstrated; strong alignment with Irenaean anti-Marcion premise |
| IV.6.2 | Declares method: refute Marcion using passages he retains in his Gospel | Explicit refutation-from-retained-text strategy; procedural blueprint for argument | HIGH — matches Irenaean programmatic method; stated as agreed methodological rule |
| IV.6.2–3 | Programmatic outline (“intentio et forma opusculi nostri”) defining structure of work | Formal methodological statement; standardized polemical procedure | HIGH — suggests adherence to established anti-Marcion template rather than ad hoc development |
| IV.6.3 | Schematic summary of Marcionite dualism (two gods, two Christs, law vs gospel) | Binary doctrinal catalogue typical of heresiological dossiers | MEDIUM-HIGH — compressed doctrinal summary indicates reliance on inherited polemical classification |
| IV.6.4 | Prophetic fulfillment as diagnostic test for identifying true Christ | Salvation-history continuity; fulfillment hermeneutic as standing rule | HIGH — core Irenaean interpretive criterion applied programmatically |
| IV.6.5 | Instruction to apply interpretive test throughout Gospel analysis | Establishes standardized analytical lens for reading Marcion’s Luke | HIGH — indicates pre-existing interpretive grid guiding subsequent commentary |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.6: “ipsum … evangelium Marcionis provocantes … probaturi adulteratum … contraria … erasit … competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit … ut veteris et novi testamenti diversitatem constituat … si administraverit dispositiones eius, si impleverit prophetias eius … creatoris pronuntiandum” // Irenaeus, AH I.27.2; III (programmatic statement): “secundum Lucam Evangelium et Epistolas Pauli decurtantes … ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos”; cf. AH I.8; II.35; III.11 (heretics mutilate texts; unity of prophecy and Gospel); IV.9–10 (Christ fulfills prophecies and recapitulates the economy of the creator).
Methodological parallels. The chapter explicitly adopts the Irenaean strategy of refutation from the Marcionite Gospel itself (“evangelium Marcionis provocantes”), directly corresponding to Irenaeus’s announced plan to argue from what Marcion retains. The claim that Marcion erased passages contrary to his doctrine while preserving others echoes Irenaeus’s repeated accusation that heretics mutilate and rearrange Scripture to support preconceived systems (AH I.8.1; I.27.2). The methodological premise—that retained material can be turned against Marcion—matches the formulation “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos.”
Structural correspondences. The argument proceeds from doctrinal presupposition (Marcion’s dualistic division between creator and unknown god) to a structured evaluative framework testing Christ’s actions against prophetic fulfillment and continuity with the creator’s economy. This mirrors Irenaeus’s progression from establishing the rule of faith to demonstrating Christ’s unity with the creator through fulfillment of prophecy (AH III.11; IV.9). The conditional sequence (“si administraverit … si impleverit … si repraesenta-verit”) reflects a systematic checklist similar to Irenaeus’s cumulative proof strategy linking prophecy, law, and Gospel into a unified salvation history.
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is framed as introducing radical dualism through artificial antitheses between law and Gospel, Judaism and Christianity—precisely the dichotomy Irenaeus attributes to Marcionite teaching (AH I.27). The insistence that authentic Christology must align with prophetic tradition reflects Irenaeus’s historical argument that Christ cannot be detached from the pre-existing revelation of the creator. The depiction of Marcion’s Christ as a late, previously unknown figure parallels Irenaeus’s portrayal of heresy as a posterior innovation severed from apostolic continuity.
Signs of inherited exegetical scaffolding. The formulation of a fixed “praescriptio” serving as an interpretive grid resembles Irenaeus’s regula fidei guiding scriptural exegesis. The structured list of criteria—fulfillment of prophecy, continuity with law, embodiment of creator’s attributes—suggests reliance on an established anti-Marcionite schema rather than spontaneous polemic. The approach anticipates pericope-by-pericope evaluation consistent with a dominical-logia or harmony-based exegetical framework.
Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly supports dependence on an earlier Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework through explicit internal refutation from Marcion’s Gospel, systematic testing of Christ against prophetic fulfillment, and deployment of a regula-like interpretive structure mirroring Irenaeus’s methodology and aligning with the strategy envisioned in the lost “altera conscriptio.”
