AM III.1–24 — Strongest Internal Indicators of Reuse (with Adversus Iudaeos as Demonstrated Copying, and Implications for Earlier Sources incl. Irenaeus)

Feature in Text	Description in AM III (as excerpted / indicated)	Structural / Redactional Signal	Parallel with Irenaean Method or Heresiological Tradition	Why This Suggests Reuse of Earlier Material (and Strengthens the “Irenaeus-as-source/dossier” Hypothesis)
Explicit self-report of rebuilding a lost earlier work	“Secundum vestigia pristini operis, quod amissum reformare perseveramus …” (AM III.1)	Direct admission of compositional layering: present text follows “tracks” of a prior lost work	Irenaeus represents anti-heretical refutation as a planned, serial project; later authors often reissue/expand inherited refutations	Establishes a concrete setting for incorporation: a reconstructed book is precisely where earlier dossier material (including Irenaean) can be folded in
Verbatim (or near-verbatim) reuse of a large proof-block from Adversus Iudaeos	The “two advents / two habitus” unit: “Discite nunc… Duos dicimus Christi habitus… totidem adventus… tamquam ovis… tamquam agnus…” (AM III.7) aligns in diction and order with Adv. Iud. XIV	Demonstrated textual reuse (same Latin, same choreography of prooftexts) rather than merely shared ideas	Irenaeus likewise proceeds by prophetic proof chains (testimonia) to bind Christ to the Creator; systematic catenae are a hallmark	Because we can prove Tertullian reuses whole written blocks, it becomes methodologically legitimate to treat AM as assembled from pre-existing materials; this makes an Irenaean dossier behind some blocks more plausible (even if not proven line-by-line here)
Proof-catena mode (Isaiah/Psalms/Daniel) deployed as a transferable “testimonia” unit	In AM III.12–15 (Emmanuel; “virtus Damasci/spolia Samariae”; Daniel 7; Ps 44/45 sword-as-Word) the argument runs as a tightly ordered prophecy-fulfillment chain	Looks like an insertable testimonia dossier: minimal narrative, maximal chained citations	Irenaeus’ preferred weapon against heresy is precisely prophetic and apostolic testimonia chaining to show one God and one Christ	The format fits “inherited dossier” usage: pre-collected prooftexts arranged in a stable sequence, easily reused across polemics; that is the most Irenaean-looking architecture in this stretch
Hermeneutical “rules of prophetic discourse” preceding proof chain	AM III.5–6 lays down interpretive rules (prophetic tense-shifts; figurative/aenigmatic speech) and then pivots into the proof-catena	Prefabricated methodological preface that can travel with a testimonia collection	Irenaeus commonly frames interpretation by exposing opponents’ misreading and then supplying correct reading rules	This “rules → catena” pairing resembles a handbook move: a reusable interpretive prolegomenon attached to an inherited proof-text dossier
Seams where Marcion-specific connective tissue is stitched onto a recycled anti-Jewish block	After the hermeneutical preface, the text flips to “Marcion must join hands with Jewish error / Jews prophesied not to recognize Christ,” then drops into material paralleled in Adv. Iud.	Clear boundary between (a) recycled proof material and (b) fresh polemical adaptation to a different opponent	Irenaeus repeatedly “relabels” the same prophetic material to show heretics share the Jews’ blindness	The presence of identifiable recycled blocks plus local connective “re-targeting” suggests compilation from earlier written units; this is exactly the environment in which an Irenaean anti-Marcion dossier could be mediated, translated, and re-aimed
Reuse extends beyond a single paragraph: repeated clusters reappear in the same order	In AM III.16–24: the “Why Iesus?” Joshua typology, the Isa 53 “low/inglorious” catena, passion typologies (Isaac/Joseph/Moses hands/serpent), “Dominus regnavit a ligno” chain, Tau-on-foreheads motif—each has strong counterparts in Adv. Iud. (IX–XI)	Continuity of reuse across multiple chapters indicates systematic redeployment, not incidental overlap	Irenaeus’ anti-heretical refutations also deploy recurring typology sets (recapitulation, prophecy, passion-figures) in stable packages	Once you can map multiple reused blocks, the simplest compositional model becomes “dossier + stitching.” That model is the strongest internal support for a pre-existing anti-Marcion tradition (Irenaeus being the most prominent candidate) standing behind the argument core, with Tertullian supplying the Latin voice and opponent-specific pivots
Same proof-units serve different polemical targets (Jews vs Marcionites)	Identical prophecy-and-typology units function in both anti-Jewish and anti-Marcion contexts	Demonstrates portability of the units and author’s practice of recycling	Irenaeus likewise treats Marcionites as severing Christ from the Creator and answers by prophetic continuity	The demonstrated practice “recycle a proof-unit into a new controversy” is the strongest procedural reason to take seriously the possibility that AM also recycles non-Tertullianic earlier units—i.e., Irenaeus or Irenaean tradition—where we cannot yet show verbatim Latin identity