| Irenaeus (AH III, 12.12) structural phrase or clause | English translation | Tertullian Latin parallel | English translation |
|---|---|---|---|
| …Apostolos quidem… annuntiasse Evangelium… | the apostles proclaim the gospel as normative authority | “intercessisse quosdam… tunc apostolos de ista quaestione consultos ex auctoritate spiritus renuntiasse” (Adversus Marcionem V.2.7) | “some intervened… then the apostles, consulted on this question, declared by authority of the Spirit.” |
| …putaverunt semetipsos plus invenisse quam Apostoli… | they considered themselves superior to the apostles | “cur ea respuatis iam apparet… ut praedicationem quidem apostolorum non sit secutus Paulus” (Adversus Marcionem V.2.7) | “it is now clear why you reject these… as if Paul had not followed the preaching of the apostles.” |
| Unde et Marcion… ad intercidendas… scripturas… | Marcion alters or cuts Scriptures | “ut deum scilicet non alium praedicantia quam creatorem… cur ea respuatis iam apparet” (Adversus Marcionem V.2.7) | “so that they proclaim no other God than the creator… it is clear why you reject them.” |
| Nos autem etiam ex his quae adhuc apud eos custodiuntur arguemus eos | refutation from texts still retained by opponents | “Principalem adversus Iudaismum epistulam… nos quoque confitemur… Amplectimur etenim omnem illam…” (Adversus Marcionem V.2.1) | “We also acknowledge the epistle… we embrace the whole of it…” |
| …hæc sola legitima esse dicant quæ ipsi minoraveruint | they declare only their reduced texts legitimate | “Miror vos tam cito transferri… ad aliud evangelium… aliud… ex conversatione… non ex divinitate” (Adversus Marcionem V.2.4) | “I marvel that you are so quickly transferred… to another gospel… another in practice, not in divinity.” |
| Irenaeus (parallel evidence) | Tertullian (Adv. Marc. V.2 primary text) |
|---|---|
| “Non alium Deum praedicaverunt apostoli, sed eumdem qui legem et prophetas dedit.” (Adv. Haer. III.12.13) “The apostles did not proclaim another God, but the same one who gave the Law and the Prophets.” | “…necessarie et apostolus in Christo post Ioannem revelato vetera infirmat nova vero confirmat, atque ita non alterius dei fidem curat quam creatoris…” (Adv. Marc. V.2.1) “…therefore the apostle, with Christ revealed after John, weakens the old and confirms the new, and thus promotes the faith not of another god but of the Creator.” |
| “Si autem et apostoli alium Deum scissent, manifeste eum praedicassent.” (cf. AH IV.2.1 thematic argument) “If the apostles had known another God, they would have openly proclaimed him.” | “Porro si omnino alium deum ab apostolo audissent… Quis enim expectaret… qui novum deum recepisset?” (Adv. Marc. V.2.2) “But if they had heard from the apostle of another god… who would wait to learn a new discipline if he had already received a new god?” |
| “Eadem quidem divinitas… alia vero dispensatio.” (cf. AH III.16; IV.9 thematic continuity of same God with new economy) “The same divinity remains, though the dispensation changes.” | “Immo quia eadem quidem divinitas praedicabatur in evangelio quae semper nota fuerat in lege, disciplina vero non eadem…” (Adv. Marc. V.2.3) “Indeed, because the same divinity was preached in the Gospel which had always been known in the Law, though the discipline was not the same…” |
| “Scripturas quidem recipiunt, sed eas pervertunt.” (Adv. Haer. III.12 context) “They receive the Scriptures but distort them.” | “…Miror vos tam cito transferri… ad aliud evangelium… non ex religione… non ex divinitate…” (Adv. Marc. V.2.4) “…I marvel that you are so quickly transferred… to another gospel… different in practice, not in divinity…” |
| Prophetic testimony grounding the Gospel: “Prophetae evangelium praenuntiaverunt.” (cf. AH III.11; IV.34) “The prophets foretold the Gospel.” | “Si enim et creator evangelium repromittit, dicens per Esaiam, Ascende in montem excelsum…; item… Quam tempestivi pedes evangelizantium pacem…” (Adv. Marc. V.2.5; citing Isa 40:9; 52:7 etc.) “For if the Creator promised the Gospel, saying through Isaiah, ‘Go up on a high mountain…’; likewise, ‘How beautiful the feet of those preaching peace…’” |
| One Gospel, not multiple divine revelations: “Evangelium unum est… non diversum secundum diversos deos.” (cf. AH III.11 thematic unity of Gospel proclamation) | “…Nam et adiciens quod aliud evangelium omnino non esset…” (Adv. Marc. V.2.5) “…For in adding that there is absolutely no other gospel…” |
| Appeal to apostolic history (Acts) to confirm orthodoxy: Irenaeus frequently uses Acts to harmonize Paul with apostolic consensus (AH III.14–15). | “…scripturam Apostolicorum confirmat… tunc apostolos de ista quaestione consultos… renuntiasse non esse imponenda onera…” (Adv. Marc. V.2.7; reference to Acts 15) “…he confirms the writing of the Acts of the Apostles… when the apostles, consulted on this question, declared that burdens should not be imposed…” |
| Harmony between Paul and apostolic tradition: “Paulus cum reliquis apostolis consonat.” (cf. AH III.13–15) | “Quodsi et ex hoc congruunt Paulo Apostolorum Acta… ut deum scilicet non alium praedicantia quam creatorem…” (Adv. Marc. V.2.7) “And if from this also the Acts of the Apostles agree with Paul… proclaiming no other god than the Creator…” |
This chapter of Adversus Marcionem V, devoted to the Epistle to the Galatians, should be read against the possibility that Tertullian is not merely echoing a general anti-heretical tradition but is directly continuing, in Latin and with expanded forensic rhetoric, the specific anti-Marcionite project anticipated by Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses III. The internal structure of the argument strongly resembles Irenaeus’s own handling of Pauline material, especially where Irenaeus explicitly deploys Galatians to demonstrate continuity between the Gospel and the Creator rather than rupture. In Adversus Haereses III.12 (and related sections in III.13–15), Irenaeus cites Galatians to show that Paul’s polemic against the Law does not imply a different god but rather confirms the same divine economy unfolding through stages; this same interpretive logic governs Tertullian’s entire treatment here.
Tertullian begins by acknowledging Galatians as “Principalem adversus Iudaismum epistulam,” immediately mirroring Irenaeus’s approach of conceding the authority of Pauline texts accepted by opponents while redirecting their interpretation. The key claim that the abolition of the Law arises from the Creator’s own prior plan (“omnem illam legis veteris abolitionem… de creatoris venientem dispositione”) corresponds closely to Irenaeus’s insistence that the apostolic teaching about the end of the Law is not evidence of a new deity but proof of prophetic fulfillment within the same God’s economy. In Adv. Haer. III.12, Irenaeus argues that Paul’s teaching against Judaizing tendencies does not reject the Creator’s Law but demonstrates its consummation in Christ; Tertullian reproduces this framework almost point for point when he states that Paul “non alterius dei fidem curat quam creatoris,” explicitly denying that Galatians introduces a second god. The continuity is methodological as well as thematic: both authors treat Galatians as decisive evidence precisely because Marcionites claim Paul as their own authority, thereby turning the opponent’s canon into the basis of refutation.
The argument about “aliud evangelium” provides particularly strong evidence of dependence on the Irenaean model. Tertullian insists that the difference between Law and Gospel concerns discipline rather than divinity (“ex conversatione aliud… non ex divinitate”), a distinction already central to Irenaeus’s exegesis of Galatians, where Paul’s polemic is framed as correcting misunderstandings within the same covenantal economy rather than announcing another deity. Tertullian’s reasoning that, had Paul proclaimed a new god, the Galatians would immediately have abandoned the Creator, closely parallels Irenaeus’s logical method in Book III, where the absence of explicit dualistic teaching in Paul is treated as decisive evidence against Marcionite claims. The cumulative effect is less that Tertullian independently arrives at similar conclusions and more that he appears to be extending a previously established anti-Marcionite line of interpretation, now elaborated through Latin juridical rhetoric.
Methodologically, the chapter strongly reflects the programmatic statement in Adv. Haer. III that heretics are to be refuted from writings they themselves retain. Tertullian builds the entire argument from Galatians, prophetic texts, and Acts—sources acknowledged by or central to debates with Marcionites—thereby enacting the exact strategy Irenaeus announced. The integration of Pauline teaching into prophetic continuity through citations of Isaiah (“Si enim et creator evangelium repromittit, dicens per Esaiam…”) parallels Irenaeus’s frequent linking of Paul with prophetic anticipation to demonstrate unity of revelation. The forensic tone—testing logical consistency, exposing contradictions, and framing interpretation as documentary proof—amplifies rather than replaces the earlier Irenaean framework.
Structurally, Pauline exegesis unfolds within a larger anti-Marcionite narrative that moves from doctrinal clarification to scriptural demonstration and finally to historical corroboration through Acts of the Apostles. This progression mirrors the sequence in Irenaeus Book III, where apostolic authority, scriptural interpretation, and ecclesial continuity are intertwined. Tertullian’s appeal to Acts as confirming Paul’s conversion and alignment with the apostolic college is especially revealing, since Irenaeus similarly uses Acts to anchor Paul within the same apostolic tradition that Marcionite interpretation attempts to isolate him from. The insistence that opponents reject Acts precisely because it contradicts their theology reinforces the impression that Tertullian is extending an already established anti-Marcionite strategy.
Historically and polemically, the chapter portrays Marcionite interpretation as an artificial innovation that requires inventing a second god and detaching Paul from the prophetic and apostolic framework. This characterization aligns closely with Irenaeus’s depiction of heresy as the abandonment of apostolic succession and public tradition in favor of self-authorized reinterpretation. Tertullian positions himself as the defender of apostolic continuity, but the conceptual scaffolding of this defense—prophetic fulfillment, unity of divine economy, refutation from shared texts, and denial of a second god—matches the structure already visible in Irenaeus’s treatment of Galatians.
Taken together, the evidence in this chapter strongly supports the hypothesis that Adversus Marcionem V is not simply parallel to Irenaeus but may represent a Latin continuation or elaboration of the project he described. The convergence is too specific to be explained merely by common anti-heretical tradition: the use of Galatians as the primary battleground, the framing of Paul as witness to the Creator’s unfolding plan, and the methodological reliance on refutation from retained texts all correspond closely to Adv. Haer. III.12–15. Tertullian’s contribution appears to lie less in inventing a new framework than in intensifying and systematizing one already articulated by Irenaeus, making this chapter a particularly strong indicator of direct or indirect dependence.
