The Conundrum of Marcion, Luke, and the Primal Tetrad in Early Christianity

The relationship between the canonical Gospels and the texts used by early heretical movements like the Marcionites remains one of the more complex and debated topics in early Christian studies. This complexity is magnified when we consider the perspectives of influential Church Fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian. Their assertions that Marcion's gospel was derived from Luke, while seemingly oblivious to the synoptic problem (i.e., the derivation of Matthew and Luke from Mark), present a fascinating paradox.

Irenaeus and the Primal Tetrad

Irenaeus's framework for understanding the Gospels is deeply influenced by the concept of the primal Tetrad, an esoteric idea that found resonance within early Christian and Gnostic thought. According to Clement of Alexandria and second-hand testimony from Irenaeus himself, this Tetrad was seen as a fundamental structure governing the universe.

Irenaeus leveraged this concept to argue for the legitimacy of the fourfold Gospel canon. He proposed that just as there were four principal heresies, there should be four Gospels, each aligning with one of these heretical groups:

1. Ebionites - Associated with Matthew.
2. Marcionites - Associated with Luke.
3. Unnamed Heresy - Associated with Mark.
4. Valentinians - Associated with John.

Irenaeus's primary concern was not the literary relationship between these texts but their theological and symbolic representation. This is evident in his insistence that the Marcionite Gospel was a mutilated version of Luke, despite evidence suggesting earlier periods when he might have considered Mark as the source.

Tertullian's Methodology

Tertullian, writing in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, followed Irenaeus's lead but added his unique polemical flair. In "Adversus Marcionem" (Against Marcion), Tertullian explicitly sets out to demonstrate that Marcion's gospel is a corrupted version of Luke. His approach includes:

• Accusations of Mutilation: Tertullian asserts that Marcion cut out sections of Luke that did not fit his theology, while also interpolating other elements.
• Use of Irenaean Methodology: He follows the method proposed by Irenaeus, attempting to refute Marcion by using the very texts Marcion acknowledged as authoritative.

Tertullian’s use of the personal pronoun "I" throughout his writings, even when deploying arguments and information from earlier authors like Irenaeus, suggests a continuity of argumentation rather than an independent discovery. This mirrors how he handled other sources in works like "Against the Valentinians" and "Against Hermogenes."

Epiphanius and the Continuity

Epiphanius, writing in the 4th century, continues this tradition, further cementing the idea that Marcion's gospel was a mutilated Luke. His methodology and arguments bear striking similarities to those of Irenaeus and Tertullian, which raises the question of direct literary dependence.

Key Parallels in Methodology:

1. Identification of the Gospel: Like Irenaeus and Tertullian, Epiphanius asserts that Marcion’s gospel is derived from Luke.
2. Scriptural Refutation: Epiphanius uses the very texts Marcion accepts to refute him, echoing Irenaeus’s promise to refute Marcion using his own canon.

Implications and Conclusion

The continuity of these arguments across Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius indicates a shared strategy in combating heresy, likely rooted in a common source or a tradition of interpretation established by Irenaeus. This tradition appears to overlook or disregard the synoptic problem — the literary interdependence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke — focusing instead on theological and symbolic coherence.

Thus, the understanding of Marcion's gospel as a version of Luke, despite the lack of recognition of the priority of Mark, reflects a theological agenda rather than a purely historical or textual analysis. The insistence on a fourfold Gospel canon grounded in the concept of a primal Tetrad underscores this theological motive.

In summary, the arguments of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius against Marcion highlight an early Christian strategy that prioritized theological coherence and symbolic frameworks over textual criticism, a strategy that has significantly shaped the reception and interpretation of the canonical Gospels.