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.