| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (IV.8) |
|---|---|
| …secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… “…but curtailing the Gospel according to Luke…” | …contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit… “…he erased whatever opposed his own opinion…” |
| …haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt… “…they say that these alone are legitimate which they themselves have reduced…” | …Christum Marcionis oportuerat omne commercium eierasse… “…Marcion’s Christ ought to have renounced all association…” |
| …Scripturas… pervertunt interpretationibus… “…they distort the Scriptures by their interpretations…” | …Christus prophetarum erit ubicunque secundum prophetas invenitur… “…Christ will belong to the prophets wherever he is found according to the prophets…” |
| …ex prophetis demonstrant concordiam cum Creatore… “…they demonstrate harmony with the Creator from the prophets…” | …Ipse igitur est Christus Esaiae… Hic, inquit, imbecillitates nostras aufert… “…He therefore is the Christ of Isaiah… ‘He takes away our infirmities’…” |
| …ex his, quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur, arguemus eos… “…from those things still preserved among them we will refute them…” | …Quodcunque curaverit Iesus, meus est… “…Whatever Jesus heals is mine…” |
| …evangelium cum prophetis consonans… “…the Gospel consonant with the prophets…” | …eiusdem dei regnum portendebat quem solum sciebat notum… “…he proclaimed the kingdom of the same God whom alone he knew to be known…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.8.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.8.1 | Prophetic fulfillment used to identify Christ (“Nazaraeus… secundum prophetiam”) | Prophecy-fulfillment hermeneutic; creator continuity inferred from prophecy | HIGH — classic Irenaean interpretive grid applied programmatically |
| IV.8.2 | Nazareth reference deployed against Marcionite expectations | Argument assumes known Marcionite doctrinal positions; inherited polemical template | MEDIUM-HIGH — suggests reliance on established anti-Marcion dossier |
| IV.8.3 | Anti-docetic proof from physical contact; corporeality argument | Standardized anti-docetic syllogism; reusable doctrinal module | HIGH — insertion of stock polemical material indicates compilation rather than fresh exegesis |
| IV.8.4 | Isaiah 53 applied as general proof-text (“imbecillitates nostras…”) | Prophetic grid overrides textual divergence; salvation-history continuity | HIGH — strong alignment with Irenaean prophetic method |
| IV.8.5 | Demon confession interpreted via creator-cosmos recognition | Cosmic witness motif; theological premise applied independent of specific wording | HIGH — inherited anti-Marcion reasoning pattern |
| IV.8.6 | Hypothetical about unknown god’s Christ accepting testimony | Predefined doctrinal profile used as analytic framework | MEDIUM-HIGH — reliance on established polemical schema |
| IV.8.7 | Rhetorical hypotheticals about Marcion’s god | Standard anti-Marcion doctrinal commonplaces | MEDIUM — rhetorical expansion likely Tertullianic overlay |
| IV.8.8 | “Oportet me… annuntiare regnum dei” interpreted as creator reference | Refutation from retained gospel text; internal coherence against Marcion’s theology | HIGH — strong execution of Irenaean “refute from retained material” program |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.8: “Nazaraeus vocari habebat secundum prophetiam Christus creatoris … prophetarum erit Christus ubicunque secundum prophetas invenitur … non possit phantasma credi qui contactum admiserit … Hic … imbecillitates nostras aufert … Tu es filius dei … Oportet me … annuntiare regnum dei” // Irenaeus, AH I.27.2 “secundum Lucam Evangelium … decurtantes”; III.11.8 “non dissolvere sed adimplere … secundum prophetas”; III.16.3 daemonia confitentur Filium Dei; III.19.1–3 verus corpus contra docetas; IV.6–9 prophetiae implentur in Christo; III.17.1 Christus a prophetis praenuntiatus; III.10.1–2 regula veritatis contra haereticos.
Methodological parallels. The argument proceeds by refuting Marcion internally through prophetic and narrative elements retained in the Gospel itself. The identification of Christ as “Nazaraeus … secundum prophetiam” parallels Irenaeus’s repeated method of demonstrating continuity through prophetic fulfillment (AH III.17.1; IV.6–9). The insistence that Christ cannot be a phantom because he is touched, seized, and physically acts mirrors Irenaeus’s anti-docetic polemic, especially the argument that real bodily contact proves true incarnation (AH III.19.1–3). The demonic confessions (“Tu es filius dei”) are treated as hostile testimony, an interpretive technique frequently used by Irenaeus (AH III.16.3). The refutation thus aligns with the Irenaean program announced in AH I.27.2 and III: arguments drawn from what Marcion preserves rather than from rejected texts.
Structural correspondences. The sequence follows a recognizable Irenaean framework: prophetic title (Nazaraeus) → historical setting (Nazareth and synagogue episode) → ontological clarification (corporeality vs. phantasm) → healing miracles fulfilling Isaiah 53 → demonic recognition → proclamation of the kingdom. This progression parallels the Irenaean pattern of demonstrating identity through prophecy, embodiment, and salvific acts (AH IV.6–9). The argument integrates geography, prophecy, and narrative action into a unified salvation-historical scheme, typical of Irenaeus’s macro-structural reasoning.
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion’s Christ is portrayed as alien to Jewish prophecy and geography; the counter-argument insists that presence in Nazareth and fulfillment of prophetic designations demonstrate continuity with the creator’s economy. Irenaeus similarly argues that heretical reinterpretations sever Christ from Israel’s history and must therefore be rejected (AH III.11; IV.9). The dismissal of demonic testimony in favor of prophetic witnesses reflects the Irenaean hierarchy of authorities—apostolic and prophetic proclamation outweighing involuntary recognition by spirits.
Inherited exegetical scaffolding. The chapter displays features of a pre-formed exegetical schema: prophetic prooftexts linked to Gospel episodes, doctrinal deductions from narrative detail (physical contact proving real flesh), and standardized anti-docetic reasoning. The integration of Isaiah 53 (“imbecillitates nostras aufert”) into miracle narratives matches Irenaeus’s habit of reading Gospel actions as prophetic recapitulation. The rhetorical pattern—if Christ fulfills prophetic identity, performs corporeal acts, and proclaims the known kingdom of God, then he belongs to the creator’s dispensation—suggests a rule-of-faith template rather than ad hoc polemic.
Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly reflects an Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework through prophetic fulfillment argumentation, anti-docetic corporeality proofs, hostile-witness demonology, and internal refutation from retained Gospel material, supporting the hypothesis of dependence upon or preservation of an earlier Irenaean exegetical structure.
