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.