Disagreements Between Tertullian's and Epiphanius's Citation of Marcionite Readings/Pericopes

 

Greek reading reported by Epiphanius	Canonical Luke reference	Epiphanius claim about Marcionite text	Tertullian evidence	Disagreement
«ἵνα ᾖ μαρτύριον τοῦτο ὑμῖν … εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς»	Luke 5:14	variant wording	Adv. Marc. 4.9.9-10 assumes canonical phrasing	YES — Epiphanius preserves variant absent from Tertullian
«ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει…»	Luke 5:24	present	Tertullian uses normally	NO
«Κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου»	Luke 6:5	present	Adv. Marc. 4.12.5	NO
«Ἰούδαν Ἰσκαριώτην…»	Luke 6:16	wording detail	not discussed	UNCLEAR
«κατέβη ἐν αὐτοῖς» vs «μετ’ αὐτῶν»	Luke 6:17	explicit Greek variant	no Latin trace	YES — textual form diverges
«πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἐζήτει ἅπτεσθαι…»	Luke 6:19-20	present	Tertullian not concerned with wording	UNCLEAR
«Κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐποίουν τοῖς προφήταις…»	Luke 6:23	present	prophetic continuity used differently	POSSIBLE
«τοσαύτην πίστιν…»	Luke 7:9	present	Adv. Marc. 4.18.1	NO
«μακάριος ὃς οὐ μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ…» altered	Luke 7:23	contextual alteration	Tertullian silent	YES — Epiphanius reports redaction unknown to Tertullian
«ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου…»	Luke 7:27	present	Adv. Marc. 4.18.7	NO
sinful woman wording	Luke 7:36-38	textual detail	Tertullian ignores wording	UNCLEAR
omission of «ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ…»	Luke 8:19-20	omission claimed	Tertullian presumes normal family reference	YES — structural contradiction
«ἐπετίμησε τῷ ἀνέμῳ…»	Luke 8:23-24	present	used by Tertullian	NO
hemorrhage narrative wording	Luke 8:42-46	variant lines	Adv. Marc. 4.20.7-8 uses episode canonically	YES — variant not reflected
Transfiguration voice	Luke 9:35	present	Adv. Marc. 4.22.1	NO
Jonah/Nineveh omission	Luke 11:29-32	material removed	Tertullian assumes prophetic fulfilment logic	YES — ideological conflict
«παρέρχεσθε τὴν κλῆσιν» vs κρίσιν	Luke 11:42	wording variant	Adv. Marc. 4.27.4 cites canonical form	YES
Wisdom saying removed	Luke 11:49-51	omission claimed	Tertullian’s prophetic argument presupposes fuller tradition	YES
confession wording altered	Luke 12:8	variant reported	Adv. Marc. 4.28.4 presumes canonical	YES
«Ζητεῖτε τὴν βασιλείαν…»	Luke 12:31	present	Adv. Marc. 4.29.5	NO
patriarch banquet cut	Luke 13:28	omission claimed	Tertullian stresses patriarch continuity elsewhere	YES — theological contradiction
rich man & Lazarus	Luke 16	present	Adv. Marc. 4.34.10	NO
ten lepers modified	Luke 17	altered narrative	Adv. Marc. 4.35 uses canonical OT continuity	POSSIBLE
rich ruler wording variant	Luke 18	variant speech forms	Adv. Marc. 4.36.4	POSSIBLE
donkey/temple narrative cut	Luke 19	omission claimed	Tertullian presupposes temple fulfilment themes	YES — structural divergence
resurrection bush proof removed	Luke 20:37-38	omission claimed	Tertullian relies on resurrection scriptural proofs	YES — major theological conflict
passion predictions removed	Luke 18:31-33	omission claimed	Tertullian assumes suffering prophecy	YES
«σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ…» absent	Luke 23:43	omission claimed	Tertullian unclear	UNCLEAR
Emmaus prophetic wording altered	Luke 24:25-26	variant	Tertullian presupposes prophecy fulfilment	YES — ideological divergence
«πνεῦμα ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει…»	Luke 24:38-39	present	Adv. Marc. 4.43.6	NO

Can Epiphanius's List of "Marcionite Citations" Be Reconciled With Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem?

Item	Greek (incipit / variant as given)	Gospel passage	In Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV? (explicit citation)	Williams footnote note
ˉα	«ὃ προσέταξε Μωυσῆς» … «εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς»	Luke 5:14 ∥ Mark 1:44 ∥ Matt 8:4	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.9.9–10	“Luke 5:14. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.9.9-10.”
ˉβ	«ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας… ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς»	Luke 5:24 ∥ Mark 2:10 ∥ Matt 9:6	NO (no IV-locus supplied in your Williams notes)	“35 Luke 5:24”
ˉγ	«Κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου»	Luke 6:5 ∥ Mark 2:28 ∥ Matt 12:8	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“36 Luke 6:5”
ˉδ	«Ἰούδαν Ἰσκαριώτην, ὃς ἐγένετο προδότης» + variant «κατέβη ἐν αὐτοῖς» (ἀντὶ «κατέβη μετ’ αὐτῶν»)	Luke 6:16–17	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“37 Luke 6:16-17”
ˉε	«Καὶ πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἐζήτει ἅπτεσθαι αὐτοῦ… ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ…»	Luke 6:19–20	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“38 Luke 6:19-20”
ˉϛ	«Κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐποίουν τοῖς προφήταις οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν»	Luke 6:23	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“39 Luke 6:23”
ˉζ	«Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, τοσαύτην πίστιν οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον»	Luke 7:9 (∥ Matt 8:10)	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.18.1	“40 Luke 7:9. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.18.1.”
ˉη	«μακάριος ὃς οὐ μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐμοί» (παρηλλαγμένον; “ὡς πρὸς Ἰωάννην”)	Luke 7:23 (∥ Matt 11:6)	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“41 Luke 7:23”
ˉθ	«Αὐτός ἐστι περὶ οὗ γέγραπται· ἰδού, ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου»	Luke 7:27 ∥ Matt 11:10 (cf. Mark 1:2)	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.18.7	“42 Luke 7:27. Cf. Adam. 2.18; Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.18.7”
ˉι	«…κατεκλίθη… ἡ δὲ γυνὴ… ἔβρεξε τοῖς δάκρυσι… ἤλειψεν… κατεφίλει»	Luke 7:36–38	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“43 Luke 7:36-38”
ˉιˉα	«…τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἔβρεξεν… ἤλειψεν… κατεφίλει»	Luke 7:44–45 (your list gives 7:44–45)	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“44 Luke 7:44-45”
ˉιˉβ	variant: not «ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ», but «ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου»	Luke 8:19–20 (cf. 8:19–21)	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“45 Luke 8:19-20”
ˉιˉγ	«Πλεόντων… ἀφύπνωσεν… ἐπετίμησε τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ»	Luke 8:23–24	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“46 Luke 8:23-24”
ˉιˉδ	«…συνέπνιγον… τίς μου ἥψατο;… ἥψατό μού τις… δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν…»	Luke 8:42–46 (cf. 8:42–48)	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.20.7–8	“47 Luke 8:42-46. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.20.7-8.”
ˉιˉε	«Ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εὐλόγησεν…»	Luke 9:16	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“48 Luke 9:16”
ˉιˉϛ	«δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν… καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐγερθῆναι»	Luke 9:22	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.21.7	“49 Luke 9:22. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.21.7.”
ˉιˉζ	«δύο ἄνδρες… Ἠλίας καὶ Μωυσῆς…»	Luke 9:30–31	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.22.1; 4.22.16	“50 Luke 9:30-31. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.22.1;16.”
ˉιˉη	«ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης φωνή… ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός»	Luke 9:35	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.22.1	“51 Luke 9:35. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.22.1.”
ˉιˉθ	«Ἐδεήθην τῶν μαθητῶν σου…» + «ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος…»	Luke 9:40–41	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.23.1	“52 Luke 9:40-41. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.23.1.”
ˉκ	«ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μέλλει παραδίδοσθαι…»	Luke 9:44	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“53 Luke 9:44”
ˉκˉα	«Οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀνέγνωτε… ∆αυίδ… εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ»	Luke 6:3–4 ∥ Mark 2:25–26 ∥ Matt 12:3–4	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.12.5	“54 Luke 6:3-4. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.12.5.”
ˉκˉβ	«Εὐχαριστῶ σοι, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ» (variant: no «καὶ τῆς γῆς», no «πάτερ»)	Luke 10:21 (∥ Matt 11:25)	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.25.1	“55 Luke 10:21. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.25.1.”
ˉκˉγ	«ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τί γέγραπται;… ὀρθῶς εἶπες. τοῦτο ποίει, καὶ ζήσῃ»	Luke 10:26–28	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“56 Luke 10:26-28.”
ˉκˉδ	«τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει φίλον… μεσονυκτίου…» + «αἰτεῖτε…» + «ἰχθὺν… ὄφιν… ᾠοῦ… σκορπίον… πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατήρ»	Luke 11:5; 9–13	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.26.28	“57 Luke 11:5; 9-13. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.26.28.”
ˉκˉε	«ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη, σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ» (Jonah/Nineveh/queen material noted as absent)	Luke 11:29–32	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“58 Luke 11:29-32”
ˉκˉϛ	variant: «παρέρχεσθε τὴν κλῆσιν τοῦ θεοῦ» (ἀντὶ «…τὴν κρίσιν…»)	Luke 11:42	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.27.4	“59 Luke 11:42. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.27.4.”
ˉκˉζ	«Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν… οἰκοδομεῖτε τὰ μνήματα τῶν προφητῶν…»	Luke 11:47	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.27.8	“60 Luke 11:47. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.27.8.”
ˉκˉη	(Wisdom-saying / blood material described as absent)	Luke 11:49–51	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“61 Luke 11:49-51”
ˉκˉθ	«μὴ φοβηθῆτε… τὸ σῶμα… ἔχοντα ἐξουσίαν βαλεῖν εἰς γέενναν» (sparrows sentence noted as absent)	Luke 12:4–5	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	(not separately numbered in Williams list beyond the chapter run)
ˉλ	variant: «ὁμολογήσει… ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ» (ἀντὶ «…ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων…»)	Luke 12:8–9	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.28.4	“62 Luke 12:8. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.28.4.”
ˉλˉα	(grass/clothing clause noted as absent)	Luke 12:27–28	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“63 Luke 12:28.”
ˉλˉβ	«Ὑμῶν δὲ ὁ πατὴρ οἶδεν ὅτι χρῄζετε…»	Luke 12:30	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.29.3	“64 Luke 12:30. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.29.3.”
ˉλˉγ	«Ζητεῖτε δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ…»	Luke 12:31	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.29.5	“65 Luke 12:31. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.29.5.”
ˉλˉδ	variant: «ὁ πατήρ» (ἀντὶ «ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν»)	Luke 12:32	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“66 Luke 12:32”
ˉλˉε	variant: «ἑσπερινῇ φυλακῇ» (ἀντὶ «δευτέρᾳ ἢ τρίτῃ φυλακῇ»)	Luke 12:35–38 (your list singles out v.38)	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“67 Luke 12:38”
ˉλˉϛ	«διχοτομήσει… τὸ μέρος… μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων»	Luke 12:46	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.29.9	“68 Luke 12:46. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.29.9.”
ˉλˉζ	«κατασύρῃ σε πρὸς τὸν κριτήν… παραδώσει… τῷ πράκτορι»	Luke 12:58–59	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.29.16	“69 Luke 12:58. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.29.16.”

ˉλˉη	«ἦλθόν τινες ἀναγγέλλοντες αὐτῷ περὶ τῶν Γαλιλαίων…» … «ἐν τῷ Σιλωὰμ…» … «ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσητε…» … «σκάπτω καὶ βάλλω κόπρια… ἔκκοψον»	Luke 13:1–9	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“70 Luke 13:1-9”
ˉλˉθ	«Ταύτην δὲ θυγατέρα Ἀβραάμ, ἣν ἔδησεν ὁ Σατανᾶς»	Luke 13:16	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“71 Luke 13:16”
ˉμ	«τότε ὄψεσθε Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ…» (παρέκοψε; ἀντὶ τούτου: «ὅτε πάντας τοὺς δικαίους ἴδητε… ὑμᾶς δὲ…»; variant “κρατουμένους” for “ἐκβαλλομένους”)	Luke 13:28	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.30.5	“72 Luke 13:28. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.30.5.”
ˉμˉα	«ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν…» … «οἱ ἔσχατοι ἔσονται πρῶτοι» … «πορευθέντες εἴπατε τῇ ἀλώπεκι ταύτῃ…» … «οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω Ἱερουσαλήμ» … «Ἱερουσαλήμ, Ἱερουσαλήμ…» … «πολλάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυνάξαι…» … «ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν» … «εὐλογημένος»	Luke 13:29–35	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“73 Luke 13:29-35”
ˉμˉβ	(παρέκοψε πᾶσαν τὴν παραβολὴν τῶν δύο υἱῶν… )	Luke 15:11–32	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“74 Luke 15:11-32”
ˉμˉγ	«Ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἕως Ἰωάννου καὶ πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται»	Luke 16:16	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.33.7	“75 Luke 16:16. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.33.7.”
ˉμˉδ	«…ἀπηνέχθη ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Ἀβραάμ» (as summarized in your Greek)	Luke 16:22	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.34.10	“76 Luke 16:22. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.34.10; cf. Adam. 2.10.”
ˉμˉε	«Νῦν δὲ ὅδε παρακαλεῖται»	Luke 16:25	NO (no IV-locus supplied in your note; Adam only)	“77 Luke 16:25. Cf. Adam. 2.10.”
ˉμˉϛ	«ἔχουσι Μωυσέα καὶ τοὺς προφήτας… οὐδὲ τοῦ ἐγειρομένου ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀκούσουσιν»	Luke 16:29; 31	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.34.10	“78 Luke 16:29; 31. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.34.10; cf. Adam. 2.10.”
ˉμˉζ	«ἀχρεῖοι δοῦλοί ἐσμεν… ὃ ὠφείλομεν ποιῆσαι πεποιήκαμεν» (noted as cut)	Luke 17:10	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“79 Luke 17:10”
ˉμˉη	«…δείξατε ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς ἱερεῦσι…» + «πολλοὶ λεπροὶ ἦσαν… Ἐλισσαίου… Νεεμὰν ὁ Σύρος»	Luke 17:12; 14 (and Luke 4:27 noted)	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.35.4; 4.35.6	“80 Luke 17:12; 14; 4:27. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.35.4; 6.”
ˉμˉθ	«Ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι, ὅταν ἐπιθυμήσητε ἰδεῖν μίαν τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου»	Luke 17:22	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“81 Luke 17:22”
ˉν	«διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ… μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν. εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὁ θεός» (+ variant: «ὁ πατήρ»; + variant: «τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδα»)	Luke 18:18–20	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.36.4	“82 Luke 18:18-20… Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.36.4.”
ˉνˉα	«Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ ∆αυίδ, ἐλέησόν με… ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε»	Luke 18:35; 38; 42	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.36.9–10	“83 Luke 18:35; 38; 42… Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.36.9-10.”
ˉνˉβ	«παραλαβὼν τοὺς δώδεκα… ἀναβαίνομεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα…» … «παραδοθήσεται… ἀποκτανθήσεται… τῇ τρίτῃ…» (noted as wholly cut)	Luke 18:31–33	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“84 Luke 18:31-33”
ˉνˉγ	«ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται… σπήλαιον λῃστῶν» (section described as cut)	Luke 19:29–46	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“85 Luke 19:29-46”
ˉνˉδ	«ἐζήτησαν ἐπιβαλεῖν… ἐφοβήθησαν»	Luke 20:19	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“86 Luke 20:19”
ˉνˉε	«λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες» (vineyard material described as cut)	Luke 20:9–17	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“87 Luke 20:9-17”
ˉνˉϛ	«κύριον τὸν θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ… θεὸς… ζώντων» (material described as cut)	Luke 20:37–38	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“88 Luke 20:37-38”
ˉνˉζ	«θεὸν Ἀβραὰμ… θεὸν Ἰσαὰκ… θεὸν Ἰακώβ… θεὸν ζώντων» (variant noted as absent)	Luke 20:37–38	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“89 Luke 20:37-38”
ˉνˉη	«θρὶξ ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς ὑμῶν οὐ μὴ ἀπόληται» (noted as cut)	Luke 21:18	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“90 Luke 21:18”
ˉνˉθ	«οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ φευγέτωσαν…» … «ἕως πληρωθῇ πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα» (noted as cut)	Luke 21:21–22	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“91 Luke 21:21-22”
ˉξ	«Συνελάλησε… πῶς αὐτὸν παραδῷ…»	Luke 22:4	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“92 Luke 22:4”
ˉξˉα	«ἑτοιμάσατε ἵνα φάγωμεν τὸ Πάσχα»	Luke 22:8	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“93 Luke 22:8”
ˉξˉβ	«ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα… Πάσχα… πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν»	Luke 22:14–15	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.40.1	“94 Luke 22:14-15. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.40.1.”
ˉξˉγ	«οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ… ἕως ἂν πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ…» (noted as cut)	Luke 22:16	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“95 Luke 22:16”
ˉξˉδ	«ὅτε ἀπέστειλα ὑμᾶς…» … «καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων συνελογίσθη» (noted as cut)	Luke 22:35; 37	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“96 Luke 22:35; 37”
ˉξˉε	«Ἀπεσπάσθη… ὡσεὶ λίθου βολήν… θεὶς τὰ γόνατα προσηύχετο»	Luke 22:41	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“97 Luke 22:41”
ˉξˉϛ	«ἤγγισε καταφιλῆσαι… Ἰούδας…»	Luke 22:47–48	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“98 Luke 22:47-48”
ˉξˉζ	(ear episode noted as cut; no Greek quotation beyond the description)	Luke 22:50	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“99 Luke 22:50”
ˉξˉη	«οἱ συνέχοντες ἐνέπαιζον… τύπτοντες… προφήτευσον…»	Luke 22:63–64	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“100 Luke 22:63-64”
ˉξˉθ	προσθήκη: «…καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας»	Luke 23:2	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“101 Luke 23:2”
ˉο	(your list’s doublet entry) «…Ἰούδας…» (as cited in Williams list: Luke 22:47–48 again)	Luke 22:47–48	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“102 Luke 22:47-48”
ˉοˉα	«…Κρανίου τόπος… διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια… ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος»	Luke 23:33; 34; 44	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.42.4–5	“103 Luke 23:33; 34; 44… Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.42.4-5.”
ˉοˉβ	«σήμερον μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ» (noted as cut)	Luke 23:43	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“104 Luke 23:43”
ˉοˉγ	«φωνήσας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξέπνευσεν»	Luke 23:46	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.42.6	“105 Luke 23:46. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.42.6.”
ˉοˉδ	«Ἰωσήφ… καθελὼν τὸ σῶμα… ἐνετύλιξε σινδόνι… ἔθηκεν ἐν μνήματι…»	Luke 23:50; 53	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.42.7	“106 Luke 23:50; 53. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.42.7.”
ˉοˉε	«ὑποστρέψασαι αἱ γυναῖκες ἡσύχασαν τὸ σάββατον κατὰ τὸν νόμον»	Luke 23:56	NO (no IV-locus supplied)	“107 Luke 23:56”
ˉοˉϛ	«τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; ἠγέρθη… μνήσθητε… δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παθεῖν… παραδοθῆναι»	Luke 24:5–7	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.43.5	“108 Luke 24:5-7. Cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.43.5.”
ˉοˉζ	«ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς… οὐχὶ ταῦτα ἔδει παθεῖν;» + variant: «ἐφ’ οἷς ἐλάλησα ὑμῖν» (ἀντὶ «…οἱ προφῆται») + «ὅτε ἔκλασε τὸν ἄρτον… ἠνεῴχθησαν… ἐπέγνωσαν»	Luke 24:25–26; 30–31	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.43.4	“109 Luke 24:25-26; 30-31… Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.43.4.”
ˉοˉη	«Τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστέ;… ἴδετε τὰς χεῖράς μου… πνεῦμα ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει…»	Luke 24:38–39	YES — Adv. Marc. 4.43.6	“110 Luke 24:38-39… Tert. Adv. Marc. 4.43.6.”

Irenaeus's Lost Adversus Marcionem as the Source or Background of Epiphanius's Report on Marcion's Gospel (Panarion 42.11)

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Epiphanius Greek parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	Marcion mutilates the scriptures	“ὡς δὲ ἠκρωτηρίασται μήτε ἀρχὴν ἔχον μήτε μέσα μήτε τέλος” (Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11 [= 2.108])	“As it has been mutilated, having neither beginning nor middle nor end.”
secundum Lucam autem evangelium… decurtantes	mutilating the Gospel according to Luke	“ὁ μὲν γὰρ χαρακτὴρ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν σημαίνει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον… ταῦτα πάντα περικόψας” (Panarion 42.11)	“The recension of the Gospel according to Luke… cutting away all these things.”
hæc sola legitima esse dicant quae ipsi minoraverint	treating altered text as authoritative	“ἀρχὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἔταξε ταύτην ‘ἐν τῷ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει Τιβερίου Καίσαρος’” (Panarion 42.11)	“He established this as the beginning of the Gospel: ‘In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar.’”
Marcion alters and rearranges scripture	rearrangement and additions to text	“τὰ μὲν… παρακόπτει, τὰ δὲ προστίθησιν ἄνω κάτω… οὐκ ὀρθῶς βαδίζων” (Panarion 42.11)	“Some things he cuts away, others he adds here and there… not proceeding correctly.”
Nos autem… ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	refuting using texts preserved by opponents	“ἐκ τοῦ παρ' αὐτῷ εὐαγγελίου τὰ πρὸς ἀντίρρησιν… παρεθέμεθα” (Panarion 42.11)	“From the Gospel in his possession we have set forth the materials for refutation.”

EPIPHANIUS (PRIMARY TEXT — Greek quotation + translation)	IRENAEUS PARALLEL (Direct quotation only)	Shared Anti-Marcionite Argument
Ὅτῳ φίλον ἐστὶ τὰς τοῦ ἀπατηλοῦ Μαρκίωνος νόθους ἐπινοίας ἀκριβοῦν…	“Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer… from those passages which he still retains.” (files.romanroadsstatic.com)	Both frame Marcion as falsifier of inherited tradition; polemic built on internal critique of retained texts.
“Whoever wishes to examine the spurious inventions of the deceitful Marcion…” (Panarion 42.11)	“He mutilates the Scriptures, acknowledging some and curtailing others.” (Against Heresies)	Methodological stance: refutation from Marcion’s own corpus.
ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ παρ' αὐτῷ εὐαγγελίου τὰ πρὸς ἀντίρρησιν…	“We shall refute them from those things which they still preserve.”	Internal refutation strategy; shared Irenaean program of arguing from the opponent’s canon.
“From the gospel he possesses we have extracted the material for refutation…” (Panarion 42.11)	“From those passages which he still retains…”	Same polemical methodology: using retained Gospel text as evidence.
ὁ μὲν γὰρ χαρακτὴρ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν σημαίνει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον…	“Marcion uses only a mutilated Gospel of Luke.”	Identification of Marcionite gospel explicitly as Luke.
“The character is that of the Gospel according to Luke…” (Panarion 42.11)	“He mutilated the Gospel according to Luke…”	Canonical identification argument.
ὡς δὲ ἠκρωτηρίασται μήτε ἀρχὴν ἔχον μήτε μέσα μήτε τέλος…	“Curtailing the Gospel… removing passages.”	Accusation of textual mutilation and disorder.
“It has been mutilated — lacking beginning, middle, and end…” (Panarion 42.11)	“He mutilates the Scriptures…”	Structural charge: disorder vs apostolic continuity.
ἐν τῷ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ ἔτει Τιβερίου Καίσαρος…	“Beginning from where it suited his doctrine…”	Marcion rearranges narrative sequence; loss of apostolic τάξις.
“He begins at ‘In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar’…” (Panarion 42.11)	“Removing passages that speak of Christ’s birth.”	Removal of infancy narrative as doctrinal manipulation.
καὶ οὐ καθ' εἱρμὸν πάλιν ἐπιμένει…	“Not preserving the true order of the Gospel.”	Narrative disorder as theological distortion.
“He does not continue in proper sequence…” (Panarion 42.11)	“He alters and rearranges.”	Shared claim: Marcion disrupts apostolic sequence.
Multiple cited Gospel fragments (e.g., Ἀπελθὼν δεῖξον σεαυτὸν τῷ ἱερεῖ…)	Irenaeus appeals to retained Gospel sayings against Marcion	Proof-text strategy: surviving verses undermine Marcion’s theology.

This passage reflects many of the same conceptual elements expressed in the cited formulation, particularly the portrayal of heresy as arising from a deliberate departure from apostolic tradition grounded in intellectual presumption and textual manipulation. The author describes Marcion as reshaping the Gospel of Luke by removing its beginnings, middle, and end, rearranging material “out of order,” and introducing alterations that distort the inherited narrative sequence, which mirrors the accusation that heretics believe themselves wiser than the apostles and therefore authorized to improve upon their proclamation. The comparison of the mutilated gospel to a garment eaten by moths reinforces the polemical claim that deviation from the apostolic rule of faith produces fragmentation and disorder, implicitly contrasting orthodox continuity with heretical innovation. By cataloguing specific textual changes and emphasizing that the authentic apostolic tradition already contains the authoritative structure and meaning of the Gospel, the passage frames Marcionite teaching as a self-confident reinterpretation that rejects the original unity between Christ, the prophets, and the Jewish scriptural framework, thereby echoing the broader early Christian narrative that heretics, convinced of superior insight, depart from the God proclaimed by the apostles while presenting themselves as more refined interpreters of the Gospel.

Irenaeus's Lost Adversus Marcionem as the Source or Background of Epiphanius's Report on Marcion's Gospel (Panarion 42.10)

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Epiphanius Greek parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	Marcion mutilates scriptures	“ἀνερευνῶν τὴν… Μαρκίωνος… ψευδηγορίαν… αὐτὰς… τὰς… βίβλους… λαβών… τὸ παρ' αὐτῷ λεγόμενον εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὸ ἀποστολικὸν… ἐξανθισάμενος” (Epiphanius, Panarion 42.10 [= 2.107])	“Investigating Marcion’s false teaching… taking in hand the books he possesses… the Gospel and the Apostolikon… extracting selections.”
secundum Lucam autem evangelium… decurtantes	mutilating the Gospel of Luke	“ὡς οὐκ εἶχεν τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίου τὸ ἀντίγραφον… αἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν παρηλλαγμένως ὑπ' αὐτοῦ ἐρρᾳδιουργήθησαν” (Panarion 42.10)	“As though he did not possess the original copy of the Gospel according to Luke… some passages were altered by him.”
epistolas Pauli decurtantes	mutilating Pauline epistles	“τὸ ἀποστολικὸν καλούμενον παρ' αὐτῷ… λέξεις φυλάττων… αἱ μὲν… παρηλλαγμένως… ἐρρᾳδιουργήθησαν” (Panarion 42.10)	“The so-called Apostolikon… preserving certain phrases… some were changed or corrupted.”
hæc sola legitima esse dicant quae ipsi minoraverint	claiming altered texts as authoritative	“τό τε παρ' αὐτῷ λεγόμενον εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὸ ἀποστολικὸν… χαρακτῆρος τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελικοῦ κηρύγματος” (Panarion 42.10)	“The Gospel and Apostolic collection as he calls them… the recension of the apostolic and gospel proclamation.”
Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	refute them using texts they still preserve	“ἀπὸ τῶν… δύο βιβλίων τὰ ἐλέγξαι αὐτὸν δυνάμενα… ἐδάφιόν τι συντάξεως ἐποιησάμην” (Panarion 42.10)	“From the two books… selecting the passages able to refute him… I composed a structured treatise.”
ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur	using remnants preserved by heretics	“ἐν οἷς φαίνεται… τὰς παραμεινάσας… λέξεις φυλάττων” (Panarion 42.10)	“In which he is shown preserving remaining words.”
alterum Deum adinvenientes refuted through retained texts	doctrinal deviation exposed by retained material	“δι' ὧν δείκνυται ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη συμφωνοῦσα πρὸς τὴν νέαν… καὶ… τὸν θεὸν ἕνα ὄντα κύριον πάντων” (Panarion 42.10)	“Through which it is shown that the Old Testament agrees with the New… and that God is one, Lord of all.”
apostolic authority vs heretical innovation	apostolic continuity contrasted with heretical alteration	“ἄλλαι δὲ… λέξεις… ὑποφαίνουσαι Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι… καὶ… τὴν τῶν νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν” (Panarion 42.10)	“Other passages showing Christ came in the flesh… and confessing the resurrection of the dead.”

Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses — English quotation)	Epiphanius (PRIMARY TEXT — Greek quotation + translation)
“Marcion mutilates the Scriptures… curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul.” (Adv. Haer. III.12.12)	ἔχει εὐαγγέλιον μόνον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν… περικεκομμένον… (Panarion 42.10) “He possesses only the Gospel according to Luke… cut down/truncated…”
“They attempt to establish their doctrine from those Scriptures which they still retain.” (Adv. Haer. III.12.12)	αὐτὰς δὴ τὰς… βίβλους… λαβών… τό τε παρ' αὐτῷ λεγόμενον εὐαγγέλιον καὶ τὸ ἀποστολικὸν… ἐξανθισάμενος (Panarion 42.10) “Taking the very books he possesses — the so-called gospel and the apostolic writings — extracting from them…”
“We refute them from the very texts they acknowledge.” (Adv. Haer. III methodological statements)	ἀπὸ τῶν… βιβλίων τὰ ἐλέγξαι αὐτὸν δυνάμενα (Panarion 42.10) “From these books [I selected] the things capable of refuting him.”
“The old covenant agrees with the new… the same God is proclaimed.” (Adv. Haer. IV–V recurring argument)	δεικνύεται ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη συμφωνοῦσα πρὸς τὴν νέαν καὶ ἡ καινὴ πρὸς τὴν παλαιὰν (Panarion 42.10) “The Old Testament is shown to agree with the New and the New with the Old.”
“Christ truly came in the flesh.” (Adv. Haer. III.16; V.1 etc.)	λέξεις… ὑποφαίνουσαι Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι καὶ… τελείως ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι (Panarion 42.10) “Passages showing that Christ came in the flesh and was fully incarnate.”
“The resurrection of the flesh is proclaimed by the apostle.” (Adv. Haer. V.7; V.13)	ὁμολογοῦσαι τὴν τῶν νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν (Panarion 42.10) “Confessing the resurrection of the dead.”
“One God, Creator of heaven and earth.” (Adv. Haer. II.1; III.11; IV.20 etc.)	τὸν θεὸν ἕνα… παντοκράτορα… ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς (Panarion 42.10) “One God, almighty, maker of heaven and earth.”

This passage exhibits clear traces of the same polemical pattern expressed in the cited formulation, portraying heresy as the result of intellectual arrogance combined with textual manipulation and theological innovation beyond the apostles. The author describes a deliberate investigation of Marcion’s teachings by examining the very books he possessed, emphasizing that Marcion altered or rearranged apostolic writings while leaving enough intact to expose his errors. Such a strategy presupposes that heretics believe themselves capable of improving upon or correcting apostolic tradition, effectively claiming superior insight, while the orthodox response insists that continuity between Old and New Testaments, the unity of God as creator, the incarnation in real flesh, and bodily resurrection are already plainly present within the apostolic texts themselves. The insistence that the retained passages of Luke and Paul demonstrate agreement between the covenants directly challenges the notion that earlier apostles remained bound to Jewish assumptions while later teachers possessed deeper knowledge. In this way the passage reinforces a familiar early Christian narrative in which deviation from the apostolic rule of faith arises from those who, convinced of their own greater wisdom, reshape inherited scripture and thereby construct an alternative theology at odds with the original proclamation.

Irenaeus's Lost Adversus Marcionem as the Source or Background of Epiphanius's Report on Marcion's Gospel (Panarion 42.9)

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Epiphanius Greek parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	Marcion mutilates scriptures	“οὗτος γὰρ ἔχει εὐαγγέλιον μόνον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν… περικεκομμένον… οὐ μόνον δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπέτεμεν… ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ τέλους καὶ τῶν μέσων πολλὰ περιέκοψε” (Epiphanius, Panarion 42.9 [= 2.105])	“He possesses only the Gospel according to Luke… cut down… not only removing the beginning… but also cutting away many parts from the middle and the end.”
secundum Lucam autem evangelium… decurtantes	mutilating the Gospel of Luke	“μόνῳ δὲ κέχρηται τούτῳ τῷ χαρακτῆρι, τῷ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγελίῳ” (Panarion 42.9)	“He uses only this recension, the Gospel according to Luke.”
epistolas Pauli decurtantes	mutilating Pauline epistles	“ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς… οὐ πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς ἐν αὐταῖς γεγραμμένοις, ἀλλὰ τινὰ… περιτέμνων, τινὰ δὲ ἀλλοιώσας” (Panarion 42.9)	“He also has epistles… but not all that is written in them, cutting some parts and altering others.”
hæc sola legitima esse dicant quae ipsi minoraverint	accepting only altered texts as legitimate	“ταύταις δὲ ταῖς δυσὶ βίβλοις κέχρηται… ἄλλα δὲ συντάγματα ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ συνέταξε” (Panarion 42.9)	“He uses only these two books… and composed other writings of his own.”
Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	refute them using texts they still preserve	“ἐξ οὗπερ χαρακτῆρος τοῦ παρ' αὐτῷ σῳζομένου… δεῖξαι… ἀκρότατα διελέγξαι… ἐξ αὐτῶν γὰρ… ἀνατραπήσεται” (Panarion 42.9)	“From the recension preserved by him… we shall expose and thoroughly refute him… for from these very texts he will be overthrown.”
ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur	using remnants still retained by heretics	“ἐκ γὰρ τῶν αὐτῶν ἔτι παρ' αὐτῷ λειψάνων τοῦ τε εὐαγγελίου καὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν εὑρισκομένων” (Panarion 42.9–10 [= 2.106])	“From the remaining portions of the Gospel and the epistles still found among him.”
alterum Deum adinvenientes (heretical doctrinal deviation revealed via retained texts)	inventing another God refuted through retained material	“δειχθήσεται ὁ Χριστὸς… μὴ ἀλλότριος εἶναι παλαιᾶς διαθήκης… καὶ οἱ προφῆται οὐκ ἀλλότριοι” (Panarion 42.9–10)	“Christ will be shown not to be alien to the Old Testament… and the prophets likewise not alien.”

Epiphanius	Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses — English quotation)
Ἐλεύσομαι δὲ εἰς τὰ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένα…	“Wherefore also Marcion and his followers mutilate the Scriptures… curtailing that according to Luke…” (Adv. Haer. III.14)
“I will proceed to what has been written by him — or rather tampered with.” (Panarion 42.9)	Shared polemic: Marcion corrupts existing texts rather than possessing independent revelation.
οὗτος γὰρ ἔχει εὐαγγέλιον μόνον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, περικεκομμένον…	“For, curtailing that according to Luke… they boast in having the Gospel.” (Adv. Haer. III.14)
“He has only the Gospel according to Luke, cut off at the beginning…” (Pan. 42.9)	Exact shared claim: Marcion uses mutilated Luke.
οὐ μόνον δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπέτεμεν… ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ τέλους καὶ τῶν μέσων πολλὰ περιέκοψε…	“They mutilate the Scriptures… removing passages and altering them.” (Adv. Haer. III context)
“He cut not only the beginning but also removed many words from the middle and end.”	Same accusation: selective excision as doctrinal method.
ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς… μόναις κέχρηται… τινὰ περιτέμνων, τινὰ δὲ ἀλλοιώσας…	“They use the apostle but corrupt his writings… adapting them to their doctrines.” (Adv. Haer. III.12 context)
“He also possesses ten epistles of the apostle, using only these — cutting some and altering others.”	Shared method: Pauline canon retained but edited.
ἐξ αὐτῶν… τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ ὁμολογουμένων ἀνατραπήσεται.	“We confute them from the very Scriptures which they retain.” (Adv. Haer. III.12.12)
“From the very texts he himself accepts, he will be refuted.”	Identical polemical strategy: refutation from Marcion’s own canon.
δειχθήσεται… μὴ ἀλλότριος εἶναι παλαιᾶς διαθήκης…	“Christ is not alien from the Law and the Prophets but fulfils them.” (Adv. Haer. III.11–12 thematic)
“It will be shown that Christ is not alien to the Old Testament.”	Core anti-Marcionite argument: continuity of Christ with Creator.
καὶ ὅτι ἀνάστασιν σαρκὸς ὁ ἀπόστολος κηρύττει…	“The resurrection of the flesh is proclaimed by the apostles.” (Adv. Haer. V.2 etc.)
“The apostle proclaims the resurrection of the flesh.”	Shared anti-docetic argument.
καὶ δικαίους τοὺς προφήτας ὀνομάζει…	“The prophets belong to the same God and bear witness to Christ.” (Adv. Haer. III passim)
“He calls the prophets righteous…”	Continuity of prophets against Marcion’s rejection.

This passage strongly reflects the same polemical framework expressed in the cited formulation, presenting heresy as arising from those who abandon the true God and presume themselves wiser than the apostles. The author characterizes Marcion as mutilating and reshaping the received apostolic writings—cutting the beginning, middle, and end of Luke’s Gospel and altering Pauline letters—thereby implying that he substitutes his own judgment for apostolic authority. Such editorial activity is framed not as interpretation but as deliberate corruption, echoing the charge that heretics believe they have “found more than the apostles” and therefore construct an alternative theological system. The emphasis on refuting Marcion using the very texts he retains also mirrors the anti-heretical strategy of demonstrating continuity between Christ, the prophets, and the Old Testament against claims of a new or superior revelation. Moreover, the assertion that Christ is not alien to the Old Covenant, that the prophets belong to the same divine economy, and that bodily resurrection is genuinely apostolic teaching directly counters the idea that the apostles themselves were limited by Jewish assumptions while later teachers possessed deeper insight. In this way, the passage exemplifies the broader early Christian polemic that heresy consists in self-confident innovation, textual manipulation, and the invention of “another god” through rejection of inherited apostolic tradition.

Adversus Marcionem V.21 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His (Allegedly) Redacted Luke

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Tertullian Latin parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	Marcion mutilates scriptures	“Soli huic epistulae brevitas sua profuit ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet.” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.21.1)	“Only this epistle was spared by its brevity from the falsifying hands of Marcion.”
hæc sola legitima esse dicant quae ipsi minoraverint	Marcion legitimizes altered textual corpus	“Miror tamen… quod ad Timotheum duas et unam ad Titum… recusaverit. Affectavit, opinor, etiam numerum epistularum interpolare.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.1)	“Yet I wonder that he rejected the two to Timothy and the one to Titus… he seems even to have wished to manipulate the number of epistles.”
Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	Refuting opponents from texts they still retain	“quod ea quae praetractata sunt retro de apostolo quoque probaverimus…” (Adv. Marc. V.21.2)	“that we have already proven earlier concerning the apostle…”

TERTULLIAN	IRENAEUS PARALLEL (English quotations from Adversus Haereses)
“Soli huic epistulae brevitas sua profuit ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet.” “The brevity of this epistle alone has benefited it, so that it escaped the falsifying hands of Marcion.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.1)	Irenaeus similarly accuses Marcion of textual mutilation: “Marcion… mutilates the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the epistles of Paul.” (Adv. Haer. III.12; cf. III.14)
“Miror tamen, cum ad unum hominem litteras factas receperit, quod ad Timotheum duas et unam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu compositas recusaverit.” “Yet I wonder that, although he received letters written to a single person, he rejected the two to Timothy and the one to Titus composed concerning ecclesiastical order.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.1)	Irenaeus defends apostolic succession and ecclesial order against heretics who reject authoritative writings: “It is within the power of all… to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world.” (Adv. Haer. III.3.1)
“Affectavit, opinor, etiam numerum epistularum interpolare.” “He seems to have attempted even to manipulate the number of the epistles.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.1)	Irenaeus accuses heretics of rearranging or altering apostolic writings: “They adapt the oracles of God to their own opinions… transferring passages and changing them.” (Adv. Haer. I.8.1; III.12)
“Memento, inspector, quod ea quae praetractata sunt retro de apostolo quoque probaverimus…” “Remember, reader, that what has already been discussed earlier we have also demonstrated concerning the apostle.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.2)	Irenaeus repeatedly appeals back to previously established apostolic authority as cumulative argument: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us.” (Adv. Haer. III.1.1)
“…ne aut hic supervacuam existimes iterationem… aut illic suspectam habeas dilationem…” “…so that you do not consider repetition here superfluous nor suspect the earlier delay.” (Adv. Marc. V.21.2)	Irenaeus similarly defends repetition as necessary against heretical distortions: “Since they employ many arguments, we must often return to the same points.” (Adv. Haer. II.1; methodological remarks throughout III–IV)

In this brief section the same anti-heretical logic is still discernible insofar as Tertullian frames Marcion not merely as an interpreter but as an innovator who alters the inherited apostolic corpus and implicitly claims greater discernment than the apostles themselves. The remark that the Epistle to Philemon escaped Marcion’s “falsarias manus” presents heresy as the result of deliberate textual manipulation rather than faithful transmission, echoing the accusation that certain teachers depart from the true God and construct alternative doctrines through self-confident reinterpretation. The criticism that Marcion rejected other Pauline letters, possibly to reshape the canonical number, reinforces the idea that heretics privilege their own judgment over apostolic authority and thus reconfigure tradition according to preconceived theological schemes. Even the meta-comment about reviewing earlier arguments underscores continuity with a prior rule of faith, contrasting the stability of apostolic teaching with the novelty introduced by later figures who imagine themselves more perceptive than the original witnesses.

Adversus Marcionem V.20 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His (Allegedly) Redacted Luke

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Tertullian Latin parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
Apostolos… annuntiasse Evangelium	Apostolic proclamation as normative authority	“unum tamen Christum et unum eius deum quocunque consilio praedicatum confirmat” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.20.1)	“he nevertheless confirms one Christ and one God of his, proclaimed under whatever motive.”
se autem sinceriores et prudentiores Apostolis esse	Claim of superior interpretation over apostles	“quasi non et figura et similitudo et effigies substantiae quoque accedant” (Adv. Marc. V.20.4)	“as though figure and likeness and form did not also belong to substance.”
alterum Deum adinvenientes	Inventing another god	“unum tamen Christum et unum eius deum…” (Adv. Marc. V.20.1)	“one Christ and one God of his…”
secundum Lucam… epistolas Pauli decurtantes	Working within Pauline material used by Marcionites	“cum dicit quod in effigie dei constitutus non rapinam existimavit…” (Adv. Marc. V.20.3)	“when he says that, being in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God robbery…”
Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	Refuting opponents from texts they still retain	“Quodsi in effigie et in imagine… vere hominem inventum” (Adv. Marc. V.20.4)	“If in form and image… he was truly found to be man.”
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	Marcionite reinterpretation or mutilation of Scripture	“Plane de substantia Christi putant et hic Marcionitae suffragari apostolum sibi…” (Adv. Marc. V.20.3)	“Indeed the Marcionites think that here also the apostle supports them concerning the substance of Christ.”
Apostolos quidem… Evangelium annuntiasse	Appeal to continuity with apostolic teaching against innovation	“Nam si alius longe ab apostolo induceretur, fecisset diversitatem novitas rei.” (Adv. Marc. V.20.2)	“For if another were introduced far from the apostle, novelty would have produced diversity.”
abstiterunt… ab eo qui est Deus	Departure from the true God through misinterpretation	“non prae reiectione dei creatoris” (Adv. Marc. V.20.6)	“not by rejection of the Creator God.”
hæc sola legitima esse dicant quae ipsi minoraverint	Restricting legitimacy to altered texts	“Non quae ex lege, sed quae per ipsum…” (Adv. Marc. V.20.6)	“Not that which is from the law, but that which is through him…”
Nos… arguemus eos	Logical refutation through internal argument from retained text	“Quomodo enim transfigurabitur, si nullum erit?” (Adv. Marc. V.20.7)	“How will it be transformed if it does not exist?”

Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses — English quotation)	Tertullian (Adv. Marc. V.20 — Latin + English translation + citation)
“Those who reject the truth preach Christ falsely, yet the same Christ is proclaimed… the rule of faith remains one.” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.12.12 — argument that heretics distort but do not create a different Christ.)	“…unum tamen Christum et unum eius deum quocunque consilio praedicatum confirmat…” “…yet he confirms one Christ and one God of Christ, proclaimed whatever the motive.” Adv. Marc. V.20.1
“Heretics alter interpretation, not the apostolic rule; the preaching remains that handed down.” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.2–3; III.12)	“…quia una quidem erat regula…” “…because the rule itself was one…” Adv. Marc. V.20.2
“Christ is truly both God and man; not a phantom but real in substance.” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.16.6; V.1.1 — anti-docetic argument)	“…accepta effigie servi… et in similitudine hominis… figura inventus homo…” “…having taken the form of a servant… in likeness of man… found in appearance as man…” Adv. Marc. V.20.3
“If He were not truly man, He would not truly suffer or redeem humanity.” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.19.3; V.1.1)	“…nec morti subditum pronuntiasset non in substantia mortali constitutum… Et mortem crucis.” “…he would not have declared him subject to death if not constituted in mortal substance… even death of the cross.” Adv. Marc. V.20.5
“The apostle does not reject the Creator but interprets the Law through Christ.” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.12.12; III.21)	“…habens iustitiam non suam iam quae ex lege, sed quae per ipsum… ex deo.” “…having righteousness not his own from the law, but that through him… from God.” Adv. Marc. V.20.6
“The promises given to Abraham extend to heavenly inheritance.” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV.8.2; V.36.1 — heavenly destiny promised by the Creator)	“Noster… municipatus in caelis… agnosco veterem ad Abraham promissionem creatoris…” “Our citizenship is in heaven… I recognise the ancient promise of the Creator to Abraham…” Adv. Marc. V.20.7
“Resurrection involves transformation of the same body.” (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V.13–14; V.31)	“…transfigurabit corpus humilitatis nostrae conformale corpori gloriae suae…” “…he will transform the body of our humiliation to be conformed to his glorious body…” Adv. Marc. V.20.7

In this passage the same polemical structure reflected in the cited formulation appears through Tertullian’s insistence that doctrinal deviation arises from those who imagine themselves more insightful than the apostles and therefore introduce a second god. The argument emphasizes continuity of proclamation—“unum tamen Christum et unum eius deum”—as the criterion of orthodoxy, directly countering the claim that later interpreters possess superior understanding beyond the apostolic witness. By noting that diversity among preachers concerns motives rather than doctrinal content, Tertullian rejects the notion that new theological insight could legitimately transform the apostolic message, implicitly portraying Marcionite innovation as precisely the kind of self-exalting departure condemned in earlier anti-heretical tradition. The rebuttal of docetic interpretations of Christ’s “effigies” further illustrates this pattern: those who reinterpret Paul to deny real incarnation are presented as misreading the apostolic teaching in pursuit of novelty. Likewise, the treatment of law and righteousness reinforces continuity with the Creator’s revelation, opposing any attempt to separate Paul from the God of Israel. Taken together, the passage echoes the idea that heretics abandon the true God, claim to surpass apostolic authority, and construct alternative theological systems grounded in presumed superior insight rather than inherited tradition.

Adversus Marcionem V.19 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His (Allegedly) Redacted Luke

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Tertullian Latin parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	We will refute them from the texts they still preserve	“Soleo in praescriptione adversus haereses omnes de testimonio temporum compendium figere, priorem vindicans regulam nostram omni haeretica posteritate.” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.19.1)	“I am accustomed, in the prescription against all heresies, to establish a summary from the testimony of times, claiming our rule prior to all heretical posterity.”
secundum Lucam… epistolas Pauli…	Using apostolic writings retained by opponents	“De spe reposita in caelis, quam audistis in sermone veritatis evangelii…” (Adv. Marc. V.19.1)	“Of the hope laid up in heaven, which you heard in the word of truth of the gospel…”
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	Marcion cuts or alters Scripture	“quae est ista plenitudo, nisi ex illis quae Marcion detraxit…” (Adv. Marc. V.19.5)	“what is this fullness, if not from those things which Marcion removed…”
hæc sola legitima esse dicant quae ipsi minoraverint	Declaring only reduced texts legitimate	“si non in illo condita sunt universa… (haec enim Marcioni displicere oportebat)” (Adv. Marc. V.19.4)	“if all things were not created in him… (for these things ought to displease Marcion)”
se autem sinceriores et prudentiores Apostolis esse	Acting as corrective editor of apostolic teaching	“edat plenitudinem dei sui Marcion, qui nihil condidit.” (Adv. Marc. V.19.5)	“Let Marcion produce the fullness of his god, who created nothing.”
alterum Deum adinvenientes	Inventing another god	“Ceterum quale est ut plenitudinem creatoris aemulus et destructor eius in suo Christo habitare voluerit?” (Adv. Marc. V.19.5)	“But what sort of thing is it that the rival and destroyer of the Creator should wish the Creator’s fullness to dwell in his Christ?”
Apostolos… annuntiasse Evangelium	Appeal to apostolic proclamation as normative authority	“Porro si nostra est quae ubique manavit… nostra erit apostolica.” (Adv. Marc. V.19.2)	“If ours is that which has flowed everywhere… ours will be apostolic.”
abstiterunt… ab eo qui est Deus	Separation from the true God	“nos quondam alienatos et inimicos sensu… creatori redigit in gratiam” (Adv. Marc. V.19.6)	“we who were formerly alienated and enemies in mind… he restores to favor with the Creator.”
Nos… arguemus eos	Forensic refutation by logical consequences drawn from retained text	“Quomodo enim ante omnes, si non ante omnia?…” (Adv. Marc. V.19.4)	“How then is he before all, if not before everything?”
(implicit) proving corruption by appealing to contradictions created by omission	Demonstrating inconsistency in Marcion’s edited reading	“Unde ante omnes probabitur fuisse qui post omnia apparuit?” (Adv. Marc. V.19.4)	“How will he be proved to have been before all who appeared after all?”

Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses — English quotation)	Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem V.19 — Latin + English)
“The tradition of the apostles, manifested throughout the whole world… has come down to us.” (Adv. Haer. III.3.1)	“De spe reposita in caelis… quod pervenit ad vos, sicut et in totum mundum.” “Of the hope laid up in heaven… which has come to you, as also into all the world.” (Adv. Marc. V.19.1)
“The preaching of the Church everywhere preserves the same faith received from the apostles.” (Adv. Haer. I.10.1)	“Si iam tum traditio evangelica ubique manaverat, quanto magis nunc?” “If already then the evangelical tradition had flowed everywhere, how much more now?” (Adv. Marc. V.19.1)
“Christ is the image of the invisible Father… through whom all things were made.” (Adv. Haer. IV.6.6; III.16)	“Invisibilis dei imaginem ait Christum… filium semper retro visum… ut imaginem ipsius.” “He calls Christ the image of the invisible God… the Son always previously seen… as His image.” (Adv. Marc. V.19.3)
“The Word of God… through whom all things were made… is the first-born of all creation.” (Adv. Haer. III.8.3; III.11.8)	“Si non est Christus primogenitus conditionis… sermo creatoris per quem omnia facta sunt.” “If Christ is not the firstborn of creation… the Word of the Creator through whom all things were made…” (Adv. Marc. V.19.4)
“All things were made by Him and for Him; therefore He recapitulates all things.” (Adv. Haer. III.16.6; V.14)	“Quomodo item boni duxit omnem plenitudinem in semetipso habitare?” “How then did he consider it good that all fullness should dwell in Him?” (Adv. Marc. V.19.5)
“He reconciled all things to God through the blood of His cross.” (Adv. Haer. V.14.3)	“Cui denique reconciliat omnia… pacem faciens per crucis suae sanguinem.” “To whom does He reconcile all things… making peace through the blood of His cross?” (Adv. Marc. V.19.5)
“The flesh is saved… for the Lord redeemed us in real flesh.” (Adv. Haer. V.2.2; V.9.1)	“Reconciliari nos ait in corpore eius per mortem… in quo mori potuit per carnem.” “He says we were reconciled in His body through death… in that body in which He could die through flesh.” (Adv. Marc. V.19.6)
“Heretics derive their doctrines from philosophical speculation.” (Adv. Haer. II.14; II.26)	“Cavendum a subtililoquentia et philosophia… omnes haereses… ex subtililoquentiae viribus.” “Beware of subtle speech and philosophy… all heresies arise from powers of philosophical subtlety.” (Adv. Marc. V.19.7)
“The law was a shadow, but Christ is the reality foretold by the law.” (Adv. Haer. IV.9.1; IV.15)	“Umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi… ergo et umbra eius cuius et corpus.” “A shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ… therefore the shadow belongs to Him whose body it is.” (Adv. Marc. V.19.9)
“Christ fulfills the law; the law prefigures Him.” (Adv. Haer. IV.13–14)	“Manifeste legis est Christus, si corpus est umbrae.” “Christ plainly belongs to the law, if the body is that of the shadow.” (Adv. Marc. V.19.9)

In this section the same anti-heretical pattern is clearly present insofar as Tertullian repeatedly portrays Marcionite teaching as a post-apostolic innovation grounded in the presumption of superior insight over the apostolic tradition. The opening appeal to temporal priority—asserting that the apostolic rule predates all heretical developments—directly reflects the claim that innovators abandon the God proclaimed from the beginning and imagine themselves wiser than the apostles. Tertullian argues that the universality and antiquity of the gospel tradition validate catholic teaching, whereas Marcion’s reinterpretations represent later deviations. The insistence that Christ, creation, and reconciliation all belong to the Creator functions as a rebuttal to the idea that the apostles were still bound to Jewish assumptions while later interpreters discovered a higher deity; instead, Paul is presented as consistently affirming continuity with the Creator. Likewise, criticism of philosophical speculation and textual alteration echoes the charge that heretics adopt foreign intellectual systems and claim deeper understanding beyond apostolic authority. Taken together, the passage reproduces the same polemical framework: heresy arises when individuals reject inherited revelation, elevate their own insight above apostolic teaching, and construct an alternative god on that basis.

Adversus Marcionem V.18 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His (Allegedly) Redacted Luke

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Tertullian Latin parallel	English translation
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	Marcion turns to cutting/altering the Scriptures	“De manibus haeretici praecidentis… non miror si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque subducit.” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.18.1)	“From the hands of the heretic who cuts away… I am not surprised if he steals syllables, since he often removes whole pages.”
secundum Lucam… epistolas Pauli decurtantes	he trims Luke and Paul	“Datam… gratiam… illuminandi omnes quae dispensatio sacramenti occulti… Rapuit haereticus In praepositionem…” (Adv. Marc. V.18.1)	“(Paul says…) grace was given… to enlighten all what is the dispensation of the hidden mystery… the heretic snatched away the preposition ‘in’…”
hæc sola legitima esse dicant quæ ipsi minoraveruint	they call only what they have reduced “legitimate”	“Rapuit haereticus… et ita legi facit…” (Adv. Marc. V.18.1)	“The heretic snatched it away… and thus he makes it read…”
Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	we will refute them even from what they still retain	“Infert enim apostolus… Ut nota fiat… per ecclesiam…” (Adv. Marc. V.18.2)	“For the apostle adds… ‘that it might be made known… through the Church…’”
Nos… arguemus eos	refutation by forensic reconstruction of what was cut	“Sed emicat falsum.” (Adv. Marc. V.18.1)	“But the falsehood flashes out (is exposed).”
(implicit) proving corruption by incoherence in the remaining text	showing tampering because the surviving syntax/logic breaks	“Infert enim apostolus… Cuius dicit principatibus et potestatibus? … ergo… pronuntias-set…” (Adv. Marc. V.18.2)	“For the apostle adds… ‘to the principalities and powers…’ Whose…? … therefore… he would have stated…”
(implicit) refuting by arguing that the excision forces absurd consequences	demonstrating that Marcion’s reading generates contradictions	“Hic captus haereticus fortasse mutabit… ut dicat…” (Adv. Marc. V.18.3)	“Here the heretic, caught, perhaps will change (his move)… so that he may say…”
(implicit) refuting by restoring the omitted element the argument requires	showing what must have stood in the text to preserve sense	“Adeo subtractum constat quod et sic veritati suae salvum est.” (Adv. Marc. V.18.4)	“Thus it is clear something has been removed, and yet even so it remains safe for its truth.”
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	cutting away Scripture (general method)	“Marcion abstulit… Hoc est enim primum in promissione praeceptum…” (Adv. Marc. V.18.11)	“Marcion removed… ‘For this is the first commandment with a promise…’”
quasdam quidem in totum non cognoscentes	not recognizing some portions at all	“etsi Marcion abstulit…” (Adv. Marc. V.18.11)	“even if Marcion removed (it)…”
se… prudentiores Apostolis esse	acting as an over-precise corrector of apostolic text	“quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.” (Adv. Marc. V.18.11)	“as though he were a most diligent investigator even in this.”
(implicit) arguing against Marcion from the very Pauline text he edits	using Paul’s retained epistle as the courtroom record against him	“Nemo, inquit, carnem suam odio habet… sicut et Christus ecclesiam… At tu solus eam odisti…” (Adv. Marc. V.18.9)	“ ‘No one hates his own flesh’… ‘as Christ (does) the Church’… but you alone hate it…”
(implicit) the opponent’s excision is exposed by appeal to a wider apostolic/prophetic register he cannot erase without collapse	showing Marcion’s cuts cannot suppress the interlocking scriptural network	“Ita cuius invenio praecepta… eius apostolum agnosco.” (Adv. Marc. V.18.7)	“Thus, whose precepts and seeds of precepts I find… his apostle I recognize.”
(implicit) the method “from retained texts” extends to identifying the real authorial-theological frame	the retained material forces the Creator-frame	“Ostendit figuram sacramenti… ab eo praeministratam cuius erat utique sacramentum.” (Adv. Marc. V.18.10)	“He shows the figure of the mystery as having been supplied beforehand by him to whom the mystery truly belonged.”
(implicit) the opponent’s exegesis is prosecuted by pointing to what he must leave intact	refutation by highlighting the unerasable structures that remain	“Sed quomodo creator et diabolus et deus idem…?” (Adv. Marc. V.18.13)	“But how can the Creator and the devil and God be the same…?”

Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses)	Tertullian (Adversus Marcionem V.18)
“They mutilate the Scriptures, removing passages which oppose them.” (AH III.12.12)	“De manibus haeretici praecidentis… syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque subducit.” “From the hands of the heretic cutting things away… he removes syllables, when he often removes whole pages.” — Adv. Marc. V.18.1
“They alter the text in order to support their doctrines.” (AH I.8.1; III.12.12 context)	“Rapuit haereticus… et ita legi facit…” “The heretic has snatched away [a word], and thus makes it read…” — Adv. Marc. V.18.1
“The mystery hidden in God the Creator is revealed through Christ.” (AH III.16.6; III.18.1 thematic parallels)	“…dispensatio sacramenti occulti ab aevis in deo qui omnia condidit.” “…the dispensation of the mystery hidden from ages in God who created all things.” — Adv. Marc. V.18.1
“The manifold wisdom of God is made known through the Church.” (AH III.24.1; III.16 thematic parallels)	“Ut nota fiat principatibus et potestatibus… multifaria sapientia dei.” “That the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to principalities and powers…” — Adv. Marc. V.18.2
“No one knew the mind of the Lord except through revelation.” (AH II.28.6; III.11 context citing Isa 40)	“Quis enim cognovit sensum domini, aut quis consiliarius ei fuit?” “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor?” — Adv. Marc. V.18.3
“Christ fulfilled what was foretold in the prophets.” (AH III.11.8; III.21.9)	“Captivam… duxit captivitatem… mentionem de prophetis apostolus sumpsit.” “He led captivity captive… the apostle took mention of this from the prophets.” — Adv. Marc. V.18.5–6
“The apostolic teaching is continuous with prophetic Scripture.” (AH III.12.7; III.21)	“Deponentes mendacium… Irascimini et nolite delinquere…” (prophetic citations) “Putting away lying… Be angry and do not sin…” — Adv. Marc. V.18.6
“The same God is Creator and Christ’s Father.” (AH III.16.6; III.21.1)	“Cuius invenio praecepta… eius apostolum agnosco.” “Whose commandments I find… I recognise as his apostle.” — Adv. Marc. V.18.7
“Marriage and the body are part of the Creator’s order.” (AH II.22.1; V.2.2 anti-docetic themes)	“Vir caput est mulieris… sicut et Christus caput est ecclesiae.” “The man is head of the woman… as Christ also is head of the Church.” — Adv. Marc. V.18.8
“The flesh is not evil; salvation includes bodily reality.” (AH V.2.2; V.7.1)	“Nemo carnem suam odio habet… sed nutrit et fovet eam.” “No one hates his own flesh… but nourishes and cherishes it.” — Adv. Marc. V.18.9
“One God gave both law and gospel.” (AH IV.9.1; IV.32.1 continuity argument)	“Quo iam mihi duos deos, si una est disciplina?” “Why then do I need two gods, if the discipline is one?” — Adv. Marc. V.18.11
“Satan, not the Creator, is the adversary.” (AH V.21.1)	“…diaboli esse… potestates et munditenentes tenebrarum istarum.” “…these powers and rulers of darkness belong to the devil.” — Adv. Marc. V.18.12

Here again clear traces of the same polemical pattern appear, since Tertullian consistently depicts the heretic as someone who alters inherited apostolic teaching and Scripture in order to support a novel doctrine, thereby implicitly claiming greater insight than the apostles and prophets themselves. The opening complaint that the heretic removes syllables or entire passages and manipulates wording illustrates precisely the accusation that innovators reshape tradition to justify belief in “another god,” rather than receiving the transmitted revelation. Tertullian reinforces continuity by grounding apostolic teaching in prophetic precedent, arguing that Paul’s allegories, ethical commands, and ecclesial structures derive from the Creator’s earlier revelation; this serves to show that the apostle remained within the established divine economy rather than transcending it. By contrasting this continuity with the heretic’s editorial interventions and doctrinal reinterpretations, the text reflects the same logic found in the earlier statement: deviation arises from those who believe themselves more refined or knowledgeable than the apostles, reinterpret the gospel as if the original witnesses were limited by Judaism, and thereby detach themselves from the true God while claiming superior understanding.

Adversus Marcionem V.17 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His (Allegedly) Redacted Luke

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Tertullian Latin parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	Marcion mutilates or alters texts	“sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.17.1)	“but Marcion at some time attempted to interpolate the title”
secundum Lucam… epistolas Pauli decurtantes	alteration of apostolic writings	“Marcion abstulit Sua…” (Adv. Marc. V.17.14)	“Marcion removed ‘his’…”
se autem sinceriores et prudentiores Apostolis esse	correcting or improving apostolic tradition	“Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistulam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam… sed Marcion… interpolare gestiit” (Adv. Marc. V.17.1)	“In the truth of the Church we have this epistle sent to the Ephesians… but Marcion tried to alter the title”
Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	refuting opponents from texts they retain	Pauline exegesis throughout retained epistle (Adv. Marc. V.17.1–16)	Tertullian argues from the epistle Marcion preserves
alterum Deum adinvenientes	invention of another god	“Alterius autem dei quod initium… cuius opus nullum?” (Adv. Marc. V.17.2)	“What beginning does another god have… whose work is none?”
abstiterunt… ab eo qui est Deus	separation from the true God	“Si creatoris sunt… quis credet ab alio ea recenseri in Christum alium” (Adv. Marc. V.17.3)	“If these belong to the Creator… who will believe they are gathered into another Christ?”
Apostolos… annuntiasse Evangelium	appeal to apostolic proclamation as norm	“superaedificati super fundamentum apostolorum… Abstulit haereticus, Et prophetarum” (Adv. Marc. V.17.16)	“built upon the foundation of the apostles… the heretic removed ‘and prophets’”

Irenaeus (Against Heresies — English quotation only)	Tertullian — Adv. Marc. V.17 (PRIMARY TEXT)
“He has summed up all things in Himself… restoring what was from the beginning.” (Adv. Haer. III.16.6)	“…recapitulare (id est ad initium redigere vel ab initio recensere) omnia in Christum quae in caelis et quae in terris…” (Adv. Marc. V.17.1) “…to recapitulate (that is, to bring back to the beginning or recount from the beginning) all things into Christ, those in heaven and those on earth…”
“Those who reject the Creator cannot show how all things are gathered into one in Christ.” (Adv. Haer. III.12.12 context)	“Alterius autem dei quod initium… cuius opus nullum?” (V.17.2) “But what beginning belongs to another god… whose work is nothing?”
“The prophets announced Christ beforehand; therefore those who hoped beforehand belonged to Him.” (Adv. Haer. III.21.4)	“Qui enim praesperasse potuerunt… nisi Iudaei, quibus Christus praenuntiabatur ab initio?” (V.17.3) “For who could have hoped beforehand except the Jews, to whom Christ was foretold from the beginning?”
“The Spirit promised by the prophets is fulfilled in Christ.” (Adv. Haer. III.17.2)	“…signati estis spiritu promissionis eius sancto… Cuius promissionis? factae per Ioelem…” (V.17.4) “…you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise… Of which promise? That made through Joel…”
“Christ is the same Lord foretold in the Scriptures and exalted by the Creator.” (Adv. Haer. III.19.2)	“Pater gloriae ille est cuius Christus rex gloriae canitur in psalmo ascendens…” (V.17.5) “That is the Father of glory whose Christ is sung as the King of glory ascending in the Psalm…”
“All things are subjected under His feet, according to the Scriptures.” (Adv. Haer. III.18.1)	“…subiciendo omnia… qui et dixit, Sede ad dexteram meam…” (V.17.6) “…subjecting all things… who also said, Sit at my right hand…”
“The devil is the ruler of this age, not the Creator.” (Adv. Haer. V.24.4)	“…princeps potestatis aeris… Hic erit diabolus…” (V.17.8) “…the prince of the power of the air… this will be the devil…”
“Man is God’s workmanship, formed anew in Christ.” (Adv. Haer. IV.38.1)	“Ipsius… sumus factura, conditi in Christo.” (V.17.11) “We are His workmanship, created in Christ.”
“The Gentiles were formerly alienated from the covenants but brought near through Christ.” (Adv. Haer. III.17.1)	“…alienati a conversatione Israelis et peregrini testamentorum… At nunc… facti estis prope in sanguine eius.” (V.17.12) “…alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants… but now… you have been made near in His blood.”
“Christ unites Jew and Gentile into one.” (Adv. Haer. III.18.7)	“Ipse est pax nostra, qui fecit duo unum…” (V.17.14) “He himself is our peace, who made the two into one…”
“The prophets and apostles together form the foundation of the Church.” (Adv. Haer. III.11.8)	“…superaedificati super fundamentum apostolorum… et prophetarum…” (V.17.16) “…built upon the foundation of the apostles… and prophets…”

In this section the same polemical structure is clearly present, since Tertullian portrays the opposing group as abandoning apostolic and prophetic continuity while imagining themselves more insightful than the original witnesses, precisely the pattern described in the earlier formulation about innovators who believe they have surpassed the apostles and therefore invent another god. The opening accusation that Marcion altered the title of the epistle already frames him as a manipulator of inherited tradition, suggesting a self-confident revisionism that presumes superior understanding. Throughout the argument Tertullian insists that the apostolic teaching is inseparable from the Creator, grounding Christ, the Spirit, prophecy, Israel’s promises, and the unity of Jews and Gentiles within a single divine economy, while depicting Marcion’s reinterpretations as artificial constructions imposed upon the text. The repeated appeal to continuity “ab initio,” to prophetic anticipation, and to the foundation of apostles and prophets underscores the claim that authentic doctrine is traditional and transmitted, whereas deviation arises from those who reject that continuity and claim deeper purity or insight. In this way the passage reflects the same conceptual framework as the earlier statement: heretical teachers, influenced by error, detach themselves from the true God and apostolic proclamation by asserting a supposedly superior revelation, thereby redefining the gospel against its original witnesses.

Adversus Marcionem V.16 Programmatic Refutation of Marcion’s Antitheses through His (Allegedly) Redacted Luke

Irenaeus structural phrase or clause	English translation	Tertullian Latin parallel (with exact citation: work, book, chapter, section)	English translation
abstiterunt sententiis suis ab eo qui est Deus	departing from the true God	“Porro de ethnicis exigere poenas… non est dei eius qui naturaliter sit ignotus.” (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V.16.3)	“To exact punishment from the Gentiles… is not the act of that god who is naturally unknown.”
putaverunt semetipsos plus invenisse quam Apostoli	claiming superior doctrinal insight	“Sed flammam et ignem delendo haereticus extinxit…” (Adv. Marc. V.16.1)	“But by deleting flame and fire the heretic has extinguished them…”
alterum Deum adinvenientes	inventing another god	“non est dei eius qui naturaliter sit ignotus…” (Adv. Marc. V.16.3)	“it is not the god who is naturally unknown…”
Marcion… ad intercidendas conversi sunt scripturas	mutilation of scripture	“flammam et ignem delendo haereticus extinxit…” (Adv. Marc. V.16.1)	“the heretic erased the flame and fire by deleting them…”
Apostolos… annuntiasse Evangelium	apostolic gospel proclamation as normative	“cum ad ultionem venturum scribat apostolus dominum…” (Adv. Marc. V.16.2)	“when the apostle writes that the Lord will come for vengeance…”
se autem sinceriores et prudentiores Apostolis esse	heretical correction of apostolic teaching	“nolente Marcione, crematoris dei Christus…” (Adv. Marc. V.16.2)	“against Marcion’s will, Christ belongs to the burning/avenging God…”
Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos	arguing from texts retained by opponents	“Evangelio non obaudientes…” interpreted through Pauline text retained by Marcion (Adv. Marc. V.16.2–3)	“those who do not obey the gospel…”
ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur	refutation using opponent’s own materials	“Illius est ergo etiam ignorantes deum plectere…” (Adv. Marc. V.16.3)	“Therefore it belongs to him also to punish those ignorant of God…”
secundum Lucam… epistolas Pauli decurtantes	controversy centered on Pauline epistles retained by Marcion	“Cum enim ad ultionem venturum scribat apostolus dominum…” (Adv. Marc. V.16.2)	“For when the apostle writes that the Lord will come for vengeance…”

Irenaeus (parallel evidence) Tertullian (Adv. Marc. V.16 primary text) “He shall come… bringing in the apostasy… and the Lord shall send him into the lake of fire… and shall bring in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” — Against Heresies V.28.2 (English translation). “Dominum et hic retributorem utriusque meriti dicimus circumferri ab apostolo… apud quem iustum sit afflictatoribus nostris rependi afflictationem… in revelatione domini Iesu venientis a caelo cum angelis virtutis suae et in flamma ignis.” “Here also we say that the Lord is presented by the apostle as the requiter of each merit… with whom it is just that affliction be repaid to our afflictors… at the revelation of the Lord Jesus coming from heaven with the angels of his power and in flaming fire.” Adv. Marc. V.16.1 “Those who do not obey Him… shall be justly judged… receiving punishment according to their deeds.” — Against Heresies IV.28.1 (English translation). “Cum enim ad ultionem venturum scribat apostolus dominum exigen­dam de eis qui deum ignorent et qui non obaudiant evangelio… poenam luituros exitialem, aeternam.” “For when the apostle writes that the Lord will come for vengeance to exact it from those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel… they will suffer eternal destructive punishment.” Adv. Marc. V.16.2 “For the knowledge of God is manifest through creation… so that none may plead ignorance.” — Against Heresies II.6.1 (English translation). “Creatori autem etiam naturalis agnitio debetur, ex operibus intellegendo… Illius est ergo etiam ignorantes deum plectere, quem non liceat ignorare.” “But to the Creator even natural recognition is owed, by understanding from His works… therefore it belongs to Him also to punish those ignorant of God, whom it is not permitted to ignore.” Adv. Marc. V.16.3 “The apostasy… the Antichrist… shall exalt himself against God and sit in the temple.” — Against Heresies V.25.1 (English translation). “Quis est autem homo delicti, filius perditionis… extollens se super omne quod deus dicitur… consessurus in templo dei… Secundum nos quidem antichristus…” “Who is the man of sin, the son of perdition… exalting himself above all that is called God… sitting in the temple of God… according to us, this is Antichrist.” Adv. Marc. V.16.4 “God permits deception for those who refuse the truth… that they may be judged.” — Against Heresies IV.29.1 (English translation). “Propterea… quod dilectionem veritatis non susceperint… erit eis instinctum fallaciae… ut iudicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati.” “Because they did not receive the love of the truth… there will be for them an impulse of delusion… so that all who did not believe the truth may be judged.” Adv. Marc. V.16.5 “The same God both judges and saves… exercising justice and goodness together.” — Against Heresies IV.40.1 (English translation). “Si indubitatum est eius esse… veritatem et salutem cuius et ira et aemulatio… quis dignius irascetur?” “If it is certain that truth and salvation belong to Him whose are also wrath and zeal… who will more fittingly be angry?” Adv. Marc. V.16.6 “God from the beginning prepared humanity through works, benefits, punishments, and preaching for knowledge of Himself.” — Against Heresies IV.14.2 (English translation). “Qui a primordio rerum naturam operibus beneficiis plagis praedicationibus… ad agnitionem sui praestruxit.” “He who from the beginning prepared the nature of things by works, benefits, punishments, preachings… for the recognition of Himself.” Adv. Marc. V.16.7

In this passage the same polemical pattern appears in recognizable form: the opponent is portrayed as departing from the true apostolic teaching through selective interpretation and doctrinal innovation, implicitly claiming greater insight than the apostles themselves. Tertullian repeatedly frames Marcion as someone who alters or erases elements of Scripture (for example references to fire, judgment, or punishment) in order to avoid identifying Christ with the Creator, which mirrors the broader accusation that heretics invent “another god” by reshaping inherited texts rather than receiving them. The insistence that the apostolic message consistently presents a judging and retributive Lord, and that attempts to reinterpret this arise from doctrinal bias, aligns with the charge that innovators abandon the authentic tradition while imagining themselves more refined or spiritually advanced than earlier authorities. Moreover, the discussion of antichrist, deception, and divine judgment reinforces the rhetorical motif that deviation from apostolic teaching stems from error or satanic influence, echoing the idea that such groups believe themselves wiser than the apostles while actually departing from the true God and the original gospel proclamation.