Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Specific comparisons of similar passages in Irenaeus and Tertullian (1)

The Latin passage from Adversus Haereses 3.16 discusses themes that can be found in Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem, such as the insistence on the unity of God, the rejection of Gnostic dualism, and the defense of Christ’s incarnation. To pinpoint a specific passage in Adversus Marcionem that reads most like Irenaeus 3.16, I would focus on sections where Tertullian, like Irenaeus, refutes Marcion's dualistic theology and affirms the continuity between the Old and New Testament teachings.

In Irenaeus 3.16, there is a significant emphasis on the unity of Christ’s person, the reality of His incarnation, and the prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled in Christ, specifically rejecting the idea that Christ and Jesus were separate entities or that Christ descended into a pre-existent man. These ideas are directly refuted by Irenaeus in connection to how false teachers deceive simpler believers.

Comparison to Adversus Marcionem:

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem III.11-12: In these chapters, Tertullian similarly focuses on refuting Marcion’s doctrine by stressing the continuity of God's revelation from the Old Testament through Christ. Tertullian, like Irenaeus, argues that the prophecies of the Old Testament, including those from the Psalms and Isaiah, are fulfilled in Christ and that the incarnation is essential for understanding salvation. He also rejects any division between the God of the Old Testament and Christ, paralleling Irenaeus’s argument about unity and refuting the Gnostic separation of the divine being from the material world.

Tertullian III.12: Tertullian discusses how the prophecy of Christ was already given to the Jewish patriarchs and that Christ did not descend merely as a spiritual entity, but came as the fulfillment of those prophecies, rooted in human history through His physical incarnation.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV.7: Tertullian, like Irenaeus in 3.16, emphasizes that the prophecies about Christ’s incarnation, suffering, and mission to reconcile humanity with God are clear in the Old Testament. He critiques Marcion for attempting to sever this continuity, similarly to how Irenaeus criticizes those who distort apostolic teaching. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use the genealogies of Christ (such as the one from David) and the reality of His human birth to assert the full humanity and divinity of Christ, which was necessary for the plan of salvation.

Tertullian IV.7: He asserts that Christ’s incarnation was prophesied and that His suffering as a real human being was necessary to fulfill the divine plan, mirroring Irenaeus’s insistence on the unity of Christ's divine and human natures.

In both these examples, Tertullian reflects the same theological points Irenaeus raises in Adversus Haereses 3.16, defending the true nature of Christ and the continuity of God’s revelation. The stylistic and thematic echoes between Tertullian and Irenaeus on these topics are strong, particularly regarding the defense against dualistic interpretations of Christ and the affirmation of the Old Testament’s authority in foretelling Christ’s coming.

This shows that Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem III.11-12 and IV.7 closely mirror the Latin sections of Irenaeus 3.16, especially in how they deal with the issues of Christology and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

Comparison of Irenaeus Adversus Haereses 3.16 with Tertullian Adversus Marcionem 3.11 - 12

Both authors employ rhetorical questions to lead their audience into logical conclusions. For example, Irenaeus uses phrases like "qui cum dejecerint aliquos a fide... his separatim inenarrabile plenitudinis suæ enarrant mysterium" (who, having overthrown some from the faith... separately reveal their unspeakable mystery of fullness). Tertullian also mirrors this approach: "Cur enim non etiam dei phantasma portaverit?" (Why would He not also bear the phantom of God?), which encourages critical thinking by questioning the opposition's faulty reasoning.

Both texts utilize repetition for emphasis, such as Irenaeus's repeated "simulantes nostrum tractatum" (pretending to teach our doctrine) and Tertullian's repetitive criticism of Marcionites, often leading his argument by exposing the logical flaws of believing in a non-incarnate Christ.

Shared Vocabulary and Concepts:

1. Use of Legal and Rhetorical Terminology:

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use legalistic vocabulary to describe theological arguments. This rhetorical style is designed to present Christian truth as something that is defensible in a court-like setting.

Irenaeus uses terms like "simulantes nostrum tractatum" (pretending to teach our doctrine) and "deceptiones" (deceptions), implying that the heretics are engaging in fraudulent behavior.
Tertullian mirrors this approach by using legalistic phrasing like "praescriptio" (prescription or legal plea), which appears multiple times in Adversus Marcionem to argue that the faith of the Church has the right of first claim (prescription) over Marcion’s heresy.

2. Common Vocabulary Related to Truth and Deception:

Both authors emphasize the contrast between truth (veritas) and deception (mendacium), employing similar vocabulary to make their points.

Irenaeus: "veritas" is a recurring term in Adversus Haereses, where he contrasts the simplicity and accessibility of truth with the "verisimilis" (plausible but false) teachings of the heretics.
Tertullian: He frequently discusses truth and deception, often using terms like "veritas" (truth) and "fallacia" (deception), specifically arguing that the Marcionites’ Christ is a phantom, which is inherently a lie. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue that true doctrine is simple and real, while heretical teachings are deceptions wrapped in complicated language.

3. Phraseological Parallels:

Irenaeus: "Decipiuntur autem omnes, qui quod est in verbis verisimile, se putant posse discere a veritate" (All are deceived who think they can learn from something that is plausible in words but false in truth). This reflects Irenaeus’s broader argument that heresies present something that seems plausible but is, in fact, a falsehood.
Tertullian: In a similar vein, Tertullian uses terms like "fallacia carnis" (the deceit of the flesh) when referring to the heresy of the Marcionites and their claim that Christ had no real body. Both texts stress that deception comes from something that seems truthful but is ultimately false.

4. Theological Concepts Related to Christ’s Incarnation:

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize the reality of Christ’s incarnation, using similar phraseology to defend the physical reality of Christ’s body.

Irenaeus: "Verbum caro factum est" (The Word became flesh), emphasizing that Christ truly took on a human body and thus could not have been a phantom.
Tertullian: Echoing this, Tertullian often uses "Veritas carnis" (the truth of the flesh) and states that Christ’s body must have been real, as the nature of the incarnation is essential for human redemption. Both authors use the word "caro" (flesh) repeatedly to stress the physical reality of Christ’s body against Gnostic and Marcionite denials.

5. Shared Use of Scriptural Interpretation:

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian engage in scriptural exegesis to defend their theological positions. They share a similar method of citing the Old Testament to affirm the continuity of God’s plan from creation to the incarnation of Christ.
Irenaeus often uses phrases like "manifeste significans" (clearly signifying) when explaining Old Testament prophecies about Christ, while Tertullian uses similar phrases like "manifestum est" (it is clear) in his exegesis.

6. Critique of Heretical "Knowledge":

Both authors criticize the Gnostic obsession with secret knowledge:

Irenaeus refers to Gnostics who "simulantes nostrum tractatum" (pretending to teach our doctrine) to deceive the simple. Tertullian parallels this by mocking Marcionites who "depravatores sunt" (are corrupters) of true doctrine, presenting themselves as possessors of a higher truth, yet ultimately leading others astray.

Conclusion:

These textual similarities in vocabulary (veritas, mendacium, caro), phraseology (verisimilis, manifestum est), and rhetorical style (legalistic, prescriptive) suggest that Tertullian was influenced by Irenaeus, either directly or indirectly, in constructing his theological arguments against Marcion. Tertullian's repeated use of phrases and concepts that align closely with those of Irenaeus indicates a shared theological tradition that reinforces the real, physical nature of Christ’s incarnation and the continuity of God’s plan from the Old to the New Testament.

Technical Terms and Doctrine:

Mendacium (lie) and fallacia (deceit) appear in both texts, with Irenaeus accusing heretics of deceiving the simple by mimicking Christian teachings, while Tertullian accuses Marcionites of promoting a deceptive, non-incarnate Christ. The constant juxtaposition of truth and falsehood is a hallmark of both authors' arguments.

Argumentation Similarities:

Refutation of Heretics through the Defense of Christ’s Incarnation:

Irenaeus (a) argues that heretics deceive simpler believers by mimicking Christian teachings and that their doctrines, though plausible, lack the truth of the apostolic faith, particularly the real incarnation of Christ. Tertullian (b) follows a similar line of reasoning, arguing against Marcion’s claim that Christ only appeared in a phantom form. He defends the idea that Christ must have truly taken on flesh, citing the absurdity of a phantom suffering, dying, and being resurrected.

Defense of Scriptural Tradition:

Both texts emphasize the continuity of the Old and New Testaments, a key argument against Marcion and other heresies that seek to sever the connection between the God of creation and the God of the New Testament. Irenaeus’s section discusses the proper understanding of Scripture, which had been manipulated by heretics, while Tertullian echoes this by explaining that Marcion's separation of the Old Testament God from Christ is unfounded.

Scriptural Fulfillment: In Irenaeus’s section (a), the fulfillment of Scripture in Christ is a key defense against Gnostic interpretations. Similarly, Tertullian (b) stresses that Christ was foretold in the Old Testament and fulfills the prophecies, rejecting Marcion’s attempts to divorce Christ from the Creator.

Attack on Gnostic Interpretation of Salvation:

Irenaeus refutes the Gnostic notion that salvation is reserved for a select few who possess secret knowledge, and he emphasizes that truth is accessible to all, especially the simple faithful. Tertullian, in the same vein, attacks Marcion for creating a false gospel that promotes an elitist, detached notion of salvation, wherein Christ’s death and resurrection are not real events but illusory concepts.

Both emphasize that the simplicity of Christian faith is its strength.

Critique of Dualism:

Irenaeus critiques Gnostic dualism, the belief in two separate gods (a good, spiritual god and a lower, material god), by emphasizing that the same God who created the world is the one who redeems it. He systematically refutes the idea that the material world, and by extension, Christ’s body, is evil. Tertullian uses similar arguments against Marcion's dualism, refuting the notion that the material world is evil and that Christ’s true incarnation could not have involved flesh.

Conclusion:

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian employ similar rhetorical techniques, vocabulary, and theological arguments in defense of the incarnation and against the heretical views of Gnosticism and Marcionism. While Tertullian presents a more structured, legalistic argument, Irenaeus's language is pastoral and focused on guiding the faithful away from deception. The linguistic parallels in terms such as veritas, mysterium, and mendacium, alongside their shared theological focus on the incarnation, demonstrate a strong connection between their works, suggesting that Tertullian was influenced by Irenaeus’s earlier writings.

2. Absolute certainty Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem reuses criticism of Marcion's from Irenaeus:

The argument that Tertullian had access to Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses and used it while writing Adversus Marcionem can be strengthened by examining their shared discussion of the passage in Paul's letters about the "god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4). Both Irenaeus and Tertullian address this passage in a strikingly similar manner by employing a repunctuation strategy to counter heretical interpretations, particularly Gnostic and Marcionite views, which misrepresent the meaning of "god of this world" as referring to the Creator.

Irenaeus's Treatment:

In Adversus Haereses (Book 3, Chapter 7), Irenaeus refutes the Gnostic interpretation that the phrase "the god of this world" refers to the Creator. He argues that if you repunctuate the text, it becomes clear that Paul is actually referring to Satan, who blinds the minds of unbelievers. Irenaeus emphasizes that the "god of this world" is Satan, not the Creator, and this argument rests on the way the text is read and punctuated.

Irenaeus’s version: “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.”
Irenaeus shows that by repunctuating the phrase to focus on Satan’s role in blinding minds, the passage ceases to support heretical doctrines that equate the Creator God with a lesser, flawed deity.

Tertullian's Similar Approach:

In Adversus Marcionem (Book 5, Chapter 11), Tertullian deals with the same Pauline passage to challenge Marcion’s theology. Marcion interprets "the god of this world" as a reference to the Creator, whom he considers to be a lower or evil god. Tertullian, following the same strategy as Irenaeus, repunctuates the passage to clarify that Paul was referring to Satan, not the Creator God. Tertullian, like Irenaeus, insists that Satan is the one who blinds the minds of unbelievers.

Tertullian’s version: "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not," stressing that the "god" mentioned here is Satan, not the Creator.

Shared Wording and Argumentation:

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize repunctuation as the key to understanding Paul's intent, directing the phrase "god of this world" to Satan, not the Creator.

Irenaeus uses phrases like "non enim Deum hujus sæculi dicit Paulus," which Tertullian parallels in his own Latin with "nos contra sic distinguendum dicimus." Both texts present the same rhetorical device of distinguishing the "god of this world" through punctuation to deflect heretical claims.

Both authors argue that heretics, such as the Gnostics and Marcionites, misinterpret this passage due to their lack of proper understanding of Paul’s phrasing. Irenaeus explicitly mentions that they "do not even know how to read Paul properly" ("ne quidem legere Paulum sciunt"), a critique that Tertullian mirrors in his own work, showing how Marcion mishandles the text.

Conclusion:

The specific linguistic parallels in their discussions of 2 Corinthians 4:4, their shared method of argumentation (i.e., repunctuating to clarify meaning), and the close alignment of their theological rebuttals suggest that Tertullian likely had access to Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses or at least was influenced by it. Tertullian's similar treatment of the passage strongly echoes Irenaeus's original argument, reinforcing the idea that Tertullian may have drawn directly from Irenaeus's work when composing Adversus Marcionem.

There are several other instances where Tertullian appears to borrow or be heavily influenced by Irenaeus in his own critique of Marcion in Adversus Marcionem. Here are a few key examples that illustrate clear parallels:

1. The Creator as the God of Justice and Mercy:

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue against Marcion's dualistic separation of the Creator as a God of justice (and hence wrath) and Christ as a God of mercy. Marcion's theology suggests that these two gods are different. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian refute this by asserting that the God of the Old Testament (the Creator) embodies both justice and mercy, thereby unifying these attributes in one God, rather than separating them into two distinct beings.

Irenaeus’s Argument (Adversus Haereses 3.25.3): Irenaeus refutes Marcion by emphasizing that the Creator is both just and merciful, and these two aspects are inseparable. He provides numerous scriptural examples of God’s mercy in the Old Testament (such as the story of Nineveh) to counter Marcion’s portrayal of the Creator as purely vengeful.

Tertullian’s Parallels (Adversus Marcionem 1.27-28): Tertullian repeats this same line of argument, emphasizing that the Creator God’s justice is not in opposition to mercy. Tertullian uses similar Old Testament examples (like the story of Jonah) to show that God is merciful as well as just, directly mirroring Irenaeus's treatment.

2. The Role of the Law and the Prophets:

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue against Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament law and the prophets. They contend that the law and the prophets were not superseded by Christ, but rather, Christ came to fulfill the law.

Irenaeus’s Argument (Adversus Haereses 4.9.1): Irenaeus asserts that the prophets and the law were necessary preparations for Christ’s coming. He defends the continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament, emphasizing that Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

Tertullian’s Parallels (Adversus Marcionem 4.1-2): Tertullian echoes this argument, stressing that the Old Testament law was a precursor to Christ and that Jesus Himself affirmed the law's validity. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian uses the phrase that Christ came "not to destroy the law but to fulfill it," and he attacks Marcion for creating a false dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments.

3. The Consistency of God’s Actions:

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize the consistency of God’s actions across both the Old and New Testaments. This is a direct refutation of Marcion’s view that the Old Testament God was capricious and inferior to the loving God revealed in Christ.

Irenaeus’s Argument (Adversus Haereses 2.28.3): Irenaeus highlights how the same God who created the world and revealed Himself in the Old Testament continued His work through Christ. He demonstrates that God's plan has been consistent throughout history, with the coming of Christ being the culmination of the Creator’s salvific work.

Tertullian’s Parallels (Adversus Marcionem 2.5-6): Tertullian similarly defends the consistency of God's actions, noting that the Creator’s purpose has always been to bring salvation. He explicitly attacks Marcion's notion that the Old Testament God is fickle or evil, using similar examples to those found in Irenaeus’s work to illustrate God's consistent justice and mercy.

4. Christ as the Fulfillment of Prophecy:

Irenaeus and Tertullian both argue that Christ’s coming was prophesied in the Old Testament, countering Marcion's claim that Christ was a new, unrelated God.

Irenaeus’s Argument (Adversus Haereses 3.16.1): Irenaeus insists that Christ is the fulfillment of the prophecies found in the Old Testament, and he cites numerous examples from the prophets to demonstrate this continuity.

Tertullian’s Parallels (Adversus Marcionem 3.5-6): Tertullian likewise emphasizes that Christ fulfills the prophecies of the Old Testament. He attacks Marcion's belief in a sharp division between the Old and New Testaments, highlighting the continuity of God's plan through prophecy.

5. Use of Scriptural Refutation:

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian make extensive use of scriptural refutation, often using the same passages to counter Marcion's theology.

Irenaeus’s Argument (Adversus Haereses 4.33.3): Irenaeus frequently cites both the Old and New Testaments to show that they are part of a unified revelation of the same God. He uses texts such as Isaiah 7:14 (on the virgin birth) to prove that the Messiah was predicted in the Old Testament.

Tertullian’s Parallels (Adversus Marcionem 5.10-11): Tertullian similarly cites numerous passages from the Old Testament to counter Marcion’s rejection of it, often using the same verses that Irenaeus uses. For instance, Tertullian refers to Isaiah 7:14 in much the same way as Irenaeus, demonstrating a clear borrowing of argument and scriptural references.

Conclusion:

The close parallels in argumentation, examples, and use of scriptural texts between Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses and Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem suggest that Tertullian likely read and drew heavily from Irenaeus's work. The specific strategies they both employ—such as defending the Creator God’s justice and mercy, maintaining the validity of the Old Testament law, and affirming the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ—show a strong overlap, with Tertullian often borrowing and expanding on Irenaeus’s ideas. The repunctuation argument regarding 2 Corinthians 4:4 is just one of several clear examples where Tertullian's work reflects a direct influence from Irenaeus.

3. Tertullian's Use of Irenaeus's Adversus Marcionem Regarding Galatians 2:5

Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem contains several arguments that closely parallel Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses, particularly in their treatment of Paul’s interactions with the Jerusalem apostles in Galatians 2:5. Both Church Fathers quote the same variant of this passage, where Paul states, "we did submit for a while" (Latin: ad horam cessimus), a reading that does not appear in most modern texts of Galatians. This textual variant is critical to their shared defense against Marcion’s interpretation of Paul as wholly separate from the other apostles and as completely opposed to Jewish law.

1. Textual Parallels in the Treatment of Galatians 2:5

In Adversus Haereses (3.13.3), Irenaeus quotes Galatians 2:5 using the phrase quibus neque ad horam cessimus, asserting that Paul submitted for a brief period, but only temporarily. Irenaeus explains that Paul’s submission was a tactical decision, aimed at preventing conflict and ensuring unity among the apostles, without compromising his theological position. He uses this interpretation to argue against the Gnostics and Marcionites, who claimed that Paul was fundamentally opposed to the authority of the Jerusalem apostles.

Similarly, in Adversus Marcionem (5.3), Tertullian cites the same variant, ad horam cessimus, in his defense of Paul’s temporary submission to the apostles in Jerusalem. Tertullian’s argument, like Irenaeus’s, revolves around demonstrating that Paul respected the Jerusalem leadership, even though he ultimately stood firm on the issue of circumcision and the role of the Mosaic Law. Tertullian uses this to refute Marcion’s extreme interpretation of Paul as completely breaking with the other apostles.

2. The Argument for Influence from Irenaeus’s Adversus Marcionem

The similarity between the two Fathers' use of this textual variant raises the possibility that Tertullian borrowed this argument directly from Irenaeus’s Adversus Marcionem. While Irenaeus’s Adversus Marcionem is now lost, the shared approach in both authors’ surviving works suggests that Tertullian was familiar with Irenaeus’s version of the argument.

Shared Purpose: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian used this passage to demonstrate that Paul’s actions reflected a nuanced position, emphasizing that he did not completely oppose Jewish customs but rather managed his interactions strategically. They aim to dismantle Marcion’s radical dichotomy between Paul and the rest of the apostles, presenting Paul as part of a broader apostolic mission that includes cooperation with the Jerusalem leadership.

Identical Textual Variant: The use of the phrase ad horam cessimus is a significant indicator of shared source material or influence. The fact that both authors quote the same unusual reading of Galatians 2:5, which is not found in most manuscripts today, strongly suggests that Tertullian was aware of Irenaeus’s interpretation, particularly given the lack of widespread manuscript support for this variant in later texts.

Thematic Alignment: Tertullian’s reliance on Irenaeus’s argument is not only evident in the specific quotation but also in the thematic structure of his refutation of Marcion. Both Fathers focus on refuting Marcion’s claim that Paul represents a break with Jewish law and the other apostles, emphasizing Paul’s temporary submission as evidence of his continued connection to apostolic authority.

3. Specific Wording and Argumentation Similarities

Comparing the specific wording used by both Fathers further supports the case for Tertullian’s borrowing from Irenaeus:

Irenaeus’s Argument (a):

"Ad horam cessimus subjectioni, uti veritas Evangelii perseveret apud vos" (Galatians 2:5). Irenaeus argues that Paul’s submission was a tactical move, made to preserve the truth of the Gospel and avoid conflict with the Jerusalem apostles.

Tertullian’s Argument (b):

"Nec ad horam cessimus subiectioni." Tertullian, following a similar line, uses this to argue that Paul only briefly submitted, with the goal of preserving unity and preventing the distortion of the Gospel by the Judaizers.

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian interpret this passage as evidence of Paul’s willingness to submit temporarily for the sake of the mission, while ultimately standing firm on doctrinal matters, particularly concerning the law and circumcision.

4. Conclusion: Tertullian’s Likely Borrowing from Irenaeus

The shared use of the textual variant "we did submit for a while" in Galatians 2:5, combined with the close alignment in their arguments and thematic structures, suggests that Tertullian likely borrowed this argument from Irenaeus’s lost Adversus Marcionem. Both Fathers use the phrase to counter Marcion’s extreme interpretation of Paul and to present a more harmonious view of Paul’s relationship with the other apostles. The presence of this shared variant and its integration into both authors’ polemics against Marcion points to a likely transmission of ideas from Irenaeus to Tertullian, reflecting the continuity of early anti-heretical arguments in the second and third centuries.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 10:18 am Irenaeus's Treatment:

In Adversus Haereses (Book 3, Chapter 7), Irenaeus refutes the Gnostic interpretation that the phrase "the god of this world" refers to the Creator. He argues that if you repunctuate the text, it becomes clear that Paul is actually referring to Satan, who blinds the minds of unbelievers. Irenaeus emphasizes that the "god of this world" is Satan, not the Creator, and this argument rests on the way the text is read and punctuated.

Irenaeus’s version: “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.”
Irenaeus shows that by repunctuating the phrase to focus on Satan’s role in blinding minds, the passage ceases to support heretical doctrines that equate the Creator God with a lesser, flawed deity.

Irenaeus does not refer to Satan here.


The following paragraph refers to Satan but in another context (as part of the attempt to show that Paul often transposed his words "due to the rapidity of his discourses").

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 10:18 amTertullian's Similar Approach:

In Adversus Marcionem (Book 5, Chapter 11), Tertullian deals with the same Pauline passage to challenge Marcion’s theology. Marcion interprets "the god of this world" as a reference to the Creator, whom he considers to be a lower or evil god. Tertullian, following the same strategy as Irenaeus, repunctuates the passage to clarify that Paul was referring to Satan, not the Creator God. Tertullian, like Irenaeus, insists that Satan is the one who blinds the minds of unbelievers.

Tertullian’s version: "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not," stressing that the "god" mentioned here is Satan, not the Creator.

And yet Tertullian has quite probably reused a prior argument about the Greek's "manner of punctuation," which was previously used by Irenaeus, which is the right way to make the point here:


Tertullian differs in referring to "the unbelieving Jews" specifically.

Tertullian then allows that God may be referred to as 'the god of this world' without altering the sense:


Then, Tertullian moves beyond the punctuation argument explicitly, identifying "the lord of this world" as Satan:


The larger point here is that this gunk is indeed useful, but it needs editing.

The key is to get these ideas that have been in my head for thirty years in some form which can be edited. I have 20 arguments like this. The specifics are important of course. The difference between some acceptance and none. But what has stood in the way of perfection has been how fucking boring it is to write out these arguments. I know where the bodies are buried.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2024 11:15 am The key is to get these ideas that have been in my head for thirty years in some form which can be edited. I have 20 arguments like this. The specifics are important of course. The difference between some acceptance and none. But what has stood in the way of perfection has been how fucking boring it is to write out these arguments.

Having gone through Against Marcion book 4 myself (in the intensive manner required for this kind of study), I sympathize. I have a high tolerance for tedium, but a couple weeks in I was really feeling worn out following that prose and cross-referencing it.

It's like counting leaves in a pile of raked leaves without the thrill of fresh air. Some more examples:

1. The Recapitulation Theme (Anakephalaiosis)

One of Irenaeus’s most famous theological concepts is the idea of recapitulation (anakephalaiosis), where Christ "recapitulates" or sums up all of humanity in himself, reversing Adam’s disobedience. This theme is prominent in Adversus Haereses (especially 5.21.1-2) and is also found in Defense of the Apostolic Preaching. Tertullian incorporates a similar theme in Adversus Marcionem (Book 5) when arguing that Christ's incarnation and atoning work reverse the effects of sin and bring humanity back into alignment with God's original plan.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5.21.1:

Irenaeus argues that Christ "recapitulated" all things in himself, becoming the second Adam to restore humanity.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 5.19:

Tertullian uses a similar argument, speaking of Christ’s role in undoing the damage caused by Adam’s fall, which reflects the theme of recapitulation, likely borrowed or inspired by Irenaeus.

2. The Creator and the Goodness of Creation

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian heavily emphasize the goodness of the created world to counter Marcion’s claim that the material world, created by the so-called demiurge, is inherently evil. Irenaeus argues in Adversus Haereses (2.2.1, 2.9.1) that the Creator God of the Old Testament is the same as the Father of Jesus Christ, and that the world He created is good. Tertullian echoes this defense in Adversus Marcionem (1.12) when he asserts that the Creator God is good and that creation reflects His goodness.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 2.9.1:

Irenaeus attacks the Gnostics and Marcionites for disparaging creation, arguing that creation is good because it comes from a good God.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 1.12:

Tertullian mounts a similar argument, rejecting Marcion’s dualism and asserting that the world created by the true God is inherently good.

This thematic overlap shows how Tertullian likely borrowed Irenaeus’s defense of the goodness of creation in response to Marcion’s dualistic theology.

3. Defense of the Apostles and the Unity of the Old and New Testaments

Irenaeus's Defense of the Apostolic Preaching focuses heavily on defending the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, showing that the apostolic message was rooted in the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. This argument is central to Irenaeus’s larger anti-Gnostic and anti-Marcionite agenda, which seeks to demonstrate the unity of God’s revelation throughout history.

Tertullian similarly defends the apostles and argues for the continuity of the Testaments in Adversus Marcionem. In particular, Tertullian contends that the Old Testament prophecies directly point to Christ and are fulfilled in him, which contradicts Marcion’s attempt to separate the God of the Old Testament from the Father of Jesus.

Irenaeus, Defense of the Apostolic Preaching 86-87:

Irenaeus demonstrates how Old Testament prophecies, such as those in Isaiah and Psalms, prefigure Christ’s life and work.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 3.18:

Tertullian argues that Christ’s life and mission fulfill Old Testament prophecies, showing that the same God inspired both the Old and New Testaments. This reflects Irenaeus’s method of demonstrating the fulfillment of prophecy.

4. Paul’s Apostleship and Continuity with the Other Apostles

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Galatians 2 to defend Paul’s apostleship and his relationship with the Jerusalem apostles, specifically against Marcion’s claim that Paul was independent of and superior to the original apostles. Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses 3.13.3, and Tertullian, in Adversus Marcionem 5.3, both argue that Paul sought to confirm his message with the apostles in Jerusalem, indicating a continuity rather than a break.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.13.3:

Irenaeus argues that Paul, far from being at odds with the other apostles, submitted his teaching to them for confirmation, showing unity in the Gospel.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 5.3:

Tertullian makes a nearly identical argument, refuting Marcion’s claim that Paul acted independently of the other apostles. Tertullian stresses that Paul sought confirmation of his message from the Jerusalem Church.

5. The Incarnation and the Role of the Flesh

Irenaeus’s focus on the Incarnation as the central event in salvation history, where Christ assumes human flesh to redeem humanity, is a theme that Tertullian borrows in his arguments against Marcion’s rejection of the Incarnation. In Adversus Haereses (5.14), Irenaeus emphasizes the importance of the flesh in Christ’s redemptive work, countering the Gnostic and Marcionite claim that the material world is evil. Tertullian echoes this argument in Adversus Marcionem (5.20), where he argues that Christ’s assumption of flesh is essential for the redemption of humanity.

Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5.14:

Irenaeus defends the reality of the Incarnation, stressing that Christ’s taking on of flesh is essential to human salvation.

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem 5.20:

Tertullian argues against Marcion’s denial of the Incarnation, using a similar line of reasoning to Irenaeus by highlighting the importance of Christ’s flesh in the economy of salvation.

Conclusion

There are numerous parallels between Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem and Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses and Defense of the Apostolic Preaching, suggesting that Tertullian was influenced by Irenaeus’s earlier anti-Marcionite writings. Specific arguments, such as the textual variant in Galatians 2:5, the theme of recapitulation, the defense of creation, and the continuity of the Testaments, demonstrate that Tertullian likely borrowed or was heavily inspired by Irenaeus’s work in constructing his own arguments against Marcion and Gnostic theology. These shared themes and textual parallels point to a broader tradition of early Christian anti-heretical polemics that Tertullian and Irenaeus both contributed to, with Tertullian often building on Irenaeus’s foundation.

Again, though I read some of the scholarship on Marcion, I am not fully-up-to-date on Marcion study.
The change from a title "Against All the Marcionite Scholars" to a title "Against Marcion Studies" seems to me one step in the right direction. Though that is still not ideal, since you, SA/SH, are presenting a study of Marcion.
(Aside. Criticizing a Marcion scholar for not joining a "cage match"--Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:34 pm--contest does little to establish good scholarly exchange. Chasing scholars away, imo, hardly helps the quality of this forum.)
I may have missed something, but Tertullian drawing on Irenaeus is not news.
Nor does that, necessarily, by itself, exclude Tertullian from possibly having other information.
But, as I admit, I haven't read all the potentially-relevant stuff.