(a) Elenchus 4. Judas Iscariot, 'which was a betrayer.' («Ἰούδαν Ἰσκαριώτην, ὃς ἐγένετο προδότης») Betrayer of whom, pray? Surely of the One who was arrested—yes indeed, and who has been crucified and has suffered many things.
(b) But how can he be arrested and crucified if, as you claim, Marcion, he is not tangible? You say he is an apparition!
(c) But your opinion will be refuted because the text calls Judas a 'betrayer,' for he betrayed his own master and delivered him into the hands of men.
(d) And it does you no good to say, 'He came down among them,' «κατέβη μετ' αὐτῶν» instead of, 'with them.' «κατέβη ἐν αὐτοῖς» You cannot declare someone a phantom when you later show, even though unintentionally, that he is tangible.
To be certain there is no equivalent section in Tertullian Against Marcion Book 4. Nevertheless it is not surprising that if such a reference did exist, it would have been ignored by Tertullian when using Irenaeus's original Against Marcion. There are very few allusions to minor textual variants in Tertullian. They exist of course. But as we just saw in our previous example Epiphanius could certainly mistake variants from the original text of Against Marcion as witnessing variant Marcionite readings. The bottom line is that the sense is the same with one particle or the other. One might argue that ἐν is a Hebraism but it can mean 'with' no les than μετ'. Epiphanius undoubtedly stumbled on to a casual reference in Irenaeus which was omitted by Tertullian and is making too much of a deal about it.
Von Sonden notes that this Marcionite reading is already attested in B 398 in Greek and the "copt syr pers and aeth."
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."