| Irenaeus (AH III.12.12) structural phrase or clause | English translation | Tertullian Latin parallel | English translation |
|---|---|---|---|
| putaverunt semetipsos plus invenisse quam Apostoli | they believed themselves wiser or superior to the apostles | “Pontice nauclere… edas velim nobis, quo symbolo susceperis apostolum Paulum… quis illum tituli charactere percusserit” (Adversus Marcionem V.1.2) | “Pontic shipmaster… show us by what credential you received the apostle Paul… who marked him with the stamp of authority.” |
| …Apostolos quidem… annuntiasse Evangelium | appeal to apostolic authority as normative | “certe Acta Apostolorum hunc mihi ordinem Pauli tradiderunt” (Adversus Marcionem V.1.6) | “certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this order of Paul.” |
| Unde et Marcion… scripturas… decurtantes | Marcion modifies or reduces the apostolic textual tradition | “ex ipsius utique epistulis Pauli, quas proinde mutilatas etiam de numero forma iam haeretici evangelii praeiudicasse debebit” (Adversus Marcionem V.1.9) | “from Paul’s own epistles themselves, which must already be judged mutilated by the form of the heretical gospel.” |
| Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos | refuting opponents from texts they retain | “nos proinde probaturos… ex ipsius utique epistulis Pauli” (Adversus Marcionem V.1.9) | “we will therefore prove… from Paul’s own epistles themselves.” |
| abstiterunt… ab eo qui est Deus… alterum Deum adinvenientes | claim of another god opposed to creator | “oportere scilicet… nihil docere… nisi tanta constantia alium deum edicere quanta a lege creatoris abrupit” (Adversus Marcionem V.1.8) | “it would be necessary… to proclaim another god with as much consistency as he broke from the creator’s law.” |
| Irenaeus | Tertullian |
|---|---|
| “Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos…” (Adv. Haer. III.12.12) “But we shall confute them even from those writings which they still preserve.” | “Nihil sine origine nisi deus solus… apostoli quoque originem a Marcione desidero…” (Adv. Marc. V.1) “Nothing is without origin except God alone… therefore I demand from Marcion also the origin of the apostle.” |
| “Evangelium autem quod est secundum Lucam circumcidit… epistolas autem Pauli similiter mutilat.” (Adv. Haer. I.27.2) “He mutilated the Gospel according to Luke… and likewise mutilates the epistles of Paul.” | “…edas velim nobis, quo symbolo susceperis apostolum Paulum, quis illum tituli charactere percusserit…” (Adv. Marc. I.1) “Produce for us, I ask, by what rule you received the apostle Paul, who stamped him with the mark of authority…” |
| “Qui autem se ab apostolis non possunt ostendere… veritatis sunt expertes.” (cf. AH III.3.1–3.4.1 succession argument) “Those who cannot show themselves from the apostles… are without the truth.” | “Ipse se, inquit, apostolum est professus… Nemo sibi et professor et testis est.” (Adv. Marc. I.1) “He himself, you say, professed himself an apostle… No one is both claimant and witness for himself.” |
| “Multi pseudoprophetae surgent… sed neque Christus neque apostoli alium Deum praedicaverunt.” (cf. AH III.12; V.25 thematic citations of dominical warning) “Many false claimants arise… yet neither Christ nor the apostles proclaimed another God.” | “Praeter haec utique legisti multos venturos qui dicant, Ego sum Christus.” (Adv. Marc. I.1) “Besides this, surely you have read: many will come saying, ‘I am Christ.’” |
| Prophetic typology grounding apostolic authority: “Prophetiae… apostolos ostendunt eiusdem Dei esse.” (cf. AH IV.21; V.21 typological method) Prophecy shows the apostles belong to the same God. | “Nam mihi Paulum etiam Genesis olim repromisit… Beniamin… lupus rapax…” (Adv. Marc. I.1) “For Genesis long ago promised Paul to me… ‘Benjamin is a ravening wolf’…” |
| Acts harmonizes Paul with apostolic tradition: “Lucas… omnia diligenter persecutus… apostolorum consensum demonstrat.” (cf. AH III.14.1–3) Luke carefully traces events and shows apostolic agreement. | “Acta Apostolorum hunc mihi ordinem Pauli tradiderunt… Inde apostolum ostendo persecutorem…” (Adv. Marc. I.1) “The Acts of the Apostles have handed down this order of Paul to me… From there I show the apostle as persecutor…” |
| “Non alium Deum praedicaverunt apostoli…” (AH III.12.13; IV.2) “The apostles did not proclaim another God.” | “…nos proinde probaturos nullum alium deum ab apostolo circumlatum… ex ipsius utique epistulis Pauli…” (Adv. Marc. I.1 / programmatic echoed in V.1) “…we will therefore prove that no other god was circulated by the apostle… from Paul’s own epistles themselves…” |
Internal evidence across the chapters reinforces this convergence. First, the recurring appeal to prophetic figures and typological anticipations (e.g., Genesis and the blessing of Benjamin interpreted as prefiguring Paul) reflects the same hermeneutical move found in Irenaeus: the apostle must be shown to belong within the Creator’s salvific economy rather than inaugurating a novel deity. Second, the insistence that neither Christ nor Paul proclaimed “another god” directly echoes Irenaeus’s central charge that Marcion invents a second deity by misreading Scripture. Third, the argumentative progression — from questions of apostolic origin, to the defense of Paul within the prophetic narrative, to a sequential exegesis of Pauline texts against Marcionite readings — parallels the structural outline implied in Irenaeus’s projected anti-Marcionite treatise. Tertullian’s Latin rhetoric is sharper and juridically framed, yet the underlying architecture remains recognizably Irenaean: refutation from the opponent’s own canon, restoration of apostolic continuity, and integration of Paul into the unified testimony of the Creator.
Taken together, these features suggest that Adversus Marcionem V may preserve, in reworked Latin form, the completion or adaptation of the project Irenaeus announced but did not independently transmit. Rather than an entirely new polemic, the book can be read as the continuation of an earlier anti-Marcionite exegetical tradition, refracted through Tertullian’s legalistic style and expanded argumentative elaboration. The internal logic — especially the recurring emphasis on origin, apostolic transmission, and the rejection of a second god — supports the hypothesis that Book V stands as a Latin reconfiguration of an earlier Irenaean framework aimed at reclaiming Paul from Marcionite interpretation.
