| Irenaeus (III, 12.12) | Tertullian (IV.9) |
|---|---|
| …secundum Lucam autem Evangelium… decurtantes… “…but curtailing the Gospel according to Luke…” | …contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit… conspirantia cum creatore… “…he erased whatever opposed his opinion… those agreeing with the Creator…” |
| …haec sola legitima esse dicunt, quae ipsi minoraverunt… “…they say that only those things are legitimate which they themselves have reduced…” | …quid ergo tibi fuit de evangelio erasisse…?… te potius vocem domini de evangelio eradicasse… “…why then did you erase it from the Gospel?… you rather erased the Lord’s word from the Gospel…” |
| …Scripturas… pervertunt interpretationibus… “…they distort the Scriptures by their interpretations…” | …dominus… legem non destruens sed magis exstruens… “…the Lord… not destroying the law but rather building it up…” |
| …ex prophetis demonstrant concordiam cum Creatore… “…they demonstrate harmony with the Creator from the prophets…” | …se eum esse qui per Hieremiam pronuntiarat, Ecce ego mittam piscatores multos… “…that he is the one proclaimed by Jeremiah, ‘Behold, I will send many fishers…’” |
| …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 nobiscum magis fuerint… “…These we will confront, these we will embrace, if they support us…” |
| …evangelium cum prophetis consonans… “…the Gospel consonant with the prophets…” | …Ut sit vobis in testimonium… se legem non dissolvere sed adimplere… “…‘that it may be a testimony for you’… that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it…” |
| Passage Unit (IV.9.x) | Argument Function (inside Marcion’s Luke) | Structural / Irenaean Method Signals | Redaction & Dependence Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| IV.9.1 | Calling of fishermen interpreted through Jeremiah prophecy (“mittam piscatores”) | Prophetic-fulfillment framework; creator continuity inferred from prophecy rather than textual detail | HIGH — classic Irenaean method: refute from retained narrative by showing prophetic continuity |
| IV.9.2 | Response to Marcionite Antitheses (law vs gospel) through creator-predicted innovation | Salvation-history continuity dissolving dualism; assumed anti-Marcion doctrinal template | HIGH — structured reuse of established anti-Marcion argumentative frame |
| IV.9.3–4 | Leper healing interpreted via law symbolism and incorruptibility logic | Modular anti-docetic syllogism; figurative law (“figuratam legem”) | HIGH — reusable doctrinal block suggests inherited exegetical tradition |
| IV.9.5 | Elisha precedent used to deny novelty of Christ’s healing | Typological continuity between prophet and Christ | MEDIUM-HIGH — strong Irenaean pattern of OT precedent neutralizing Marcionite discontinuity |
| IV.9.6 | Command to show oneself to priest used as proof of creator allegiance | Refutation from retained gospel episode; law fulfillment equals creator identity | HIGH — direct execution of “refute from retained text” program |
| IV.9.7 | Accusation that Marcion erased passages from gospel | Presupposed catalogue of deletions; inherited mutilation paradigm | HIGH — reliance on established anti-Marcion dossier rather than local demonstration |
| IV.9.8 | Concluding syllogism: fulfillment of law contradicts Marcionite dualism | Deductive collapse of opponent system through prophetic/legal continuity | HIGH — standardized polemical template applied to retained narrative |
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.9: “Ne time, abhinc enim homines eris capiens … Ecce ego mittam piscatores multos … non destruens sed magis exstruens … tetigit leprosum … Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus quod praecepit Moyses … Ut sit vobis in testimonium … Non veni legem dissolvere sed adimplere … erasisse” // Irenaeus, AH III (program): “secundum Lucam Evangelium … decurtantes”; IV.12–13 Christum legem non solvere sed perficere; IV.2–3 typologia legis (figurae spiritalia significant); III.17.1 prophetiae adimpletae in Christo; IV.9.1–3 Christus sanans ut Creator; II.13; I.8 haeretici detrahunt/addunt Scripturis.
Methodological parallels. The chapter exemplifies precisely the procedure Irenaeus announces: refutation “ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur” by pressing the Marcionite Gospel against Marcion’s own antithetical thesis. The repeated allegation of editorial violence—“erasisse” the dominical saying about fulfilling law—directly parallels Irenaeus’s description of Marcion “decurtans” Luke (AH III; I.27.2) and his broader charge that heretics “detrahunt” and “addunt” to Scripture (AH I.8.1; II.13). The argument is explicitly internal: the same pericope (call of Peter; cleansing of the leper) is made to yield anti-Marcionite conclusions by showing that Marcion’s Christ performs acts that presuppose Creator-law and prophetic economy.
Structural correspondences. The chapter proceeds in a characteristically Irenaean sequence: (a) prophetic fulfillment tied to a dominical logion (Jer 16:16 “mittam piscatores”) as explanation for the apostolic call; (b) typological construal of legal prescriptions (“figurae carnalia spiritalia significant”) as preparatory pedagogy; (c) doctrinal inference from narrative detail (touching the leper as proof of incorruptible divine power and real embodiment); (d) explicit anchoring in Mosaic ritual and priestly verification (“ostende te sacerdoti … offer munus”) culminating in the fulfillment maxim (“Non veni legem dissolvere sed adimplere”). This is the same “economy” logic Irenaeus repeatedly deploys: the law contains figures; Christ completes, reveals, and recapitulates their meaning (AH IV.2–3; IV.12–13; III.17.1).
Historical polemic parallels. Marcion is treated as the late emendator who must either harmonize his Christ with the Creator’s law/prophets or concede inconsistency. The polemic targets exactly the Marcionite wedge between law and Gospel, showing that the Gospel scene itself resists such separation: prophecy about “piscatores,” Mosaic ritual after healing, and the public “testimonium” combine to locate Jesus within Israel’s dispensation. This corresponds to Irenaeus’s recurrent strategy: heresy is posterior and parasitic, and its antitheses collapse when confronted with the unified apostolic/prohetic tradition (AH III.3; III.11; IV.9).
Inherited exegetical scaffolding. The chapter reads like a pre-formed anti-Marcionite dossier of prooftexts and pericopes: Jeremiah 16:16 for apostolic “fishing,” Elisha/Naaman as typological prefiguration of gentile cleansing, Isaiah’s “sermo compendiatus” invoked to frame Christ’s superior but continuous operation, and the climactic Matt 5:17 (“non dissolvere sed adimplere”) treated as the controlling maxim whose excision betrays Marcion. This is recognizably Irenaean technique: a tight weave of prophecy, typology, and dominical sayings used to demonstrate one God and one economy, with polemical asides exposing editorial manipulation (AH IV.2–3; IV.6–9; I.8).
Condensed assessment. The chapter strongly supports dependence on an Irenaean anti-Marcionite framework: it refutes Marcion from retained Gospel pericopes, relies on prophecy-plus-typology to bind Gospel to law, foregrounds Marcionite excision (“erasisse”) in the very terms used in Adversus Haereses, and exhibits a schematic proof pattern characteristic of Irenaeus’s unified-economy polemic.
